Two embittered business partners are at odds over a £7.5 million property dispute which unfolded in a Plymouth High Court.
Retail tycoon Chris Dawson – whose worth was estimated at £380 million on the latest Times Rich List – and his former partner Paul Scantlebury have both successfully taken legal action against each other after an expansive property deal fell through.
The two had teamed up in 2009 to renovate a host of luxury villas in the south of France. It was only after one villa located near Cannes was sold for a six-figure sum that Mr Dawson reportedly grew suspicious of his partner, however, after money from the deal apparently went missing.
The court later heard that over £9,000 spent on the renovation of one villa, named Cap D’Ail, was retained by Mr Scantlebury and spent on his failing UK-based property business, PS Developments.
It also became apparent that Mr Scantlebury had previously failed to pay money promised towards the project. Mr Dawson then loaned his partner £350,000 with the understanding that a £159,000 lump sum would later be payable as interest. He allegedly later unceremoniously replaced his partner with a colleague from the UK, who took over duties overseeing the project from Mr Scantlebury.
Judge Havelock-Allan QC ruled that the loan, along with the interest specified, should be paid back to Mr Dawson, along with almost £16,000 relating to a breach of contract. Mr Scantlebury was awarded damages of £73,000 after being sacked yet also told he must cover the cost of all court proceedings.
The Plymouth Herald reported that both men considered the court proceedings “a victory”. Mr Dawson, who owns High Street retail chain The Range, claimed that his “Point and principle have been proven” and that his team had finished the trial “having been proved right”.
Mr Scantlebury also felt “vindicated” and that he had “cleared his name” despite the large loan bill he faced. He added:“The fact the judge has found that [Mr Dawson] shouldn’t have terminated my contract shows that I’ve won,” according to the Herald.
Havelock-Allan attributed the dispute to “a clash of personalities”, before describing the pair’s business practices as like “chalk and cheese”.
Leave a comment