The High Court has struck out a “flawed both procedurally and substantively” claim made by a disgruntled director of a borrowing company which had used the peer-to-peer firm Lendy to finance the purchase and development of an estate in Scotland.
The Killean Estate, self-styled as “A Coastal Retreat on the Shores of Scotland’s West Coast“, comprises 24 self catering holiday lets, two farms, a shop and a hotel. It was purchased by Killean Estate Limited, acting under its director Anthony Alan Gladwin, 61, in 2016.
A photo from the listing on the Lendy website
The money to fund the purchase was collectively raised from some 3,100 members of the public facilitated by the peer-to-peer lending platform Lendy Ltd.
Following the loans default Lendy ultimately only received £3.1m from the total debt of some £8.7m.
Lendy collapsed into administration in May 2019 with retail investors standing to lose millions of pounds. This site has extensively reported on the Lendy downfall.
According to details in a 62-paragraph judgment, published in the last few days following a court hearing in October 2024, it has emerged that the former director of Killean Estate Limited, Mr Gladwin, made serious allegations against the conduct of both Lendy while it was trading and subsequently RSM. Various partners of which became the joint administrators’ of both Lendy and separately Killean Estate Limited.
“It is clear that [Mr Gladwin] is extremely unhappy at the manner in which Lendy and SSSHL treated the Company. He alleged that they had thwarted the Company’s attempts to refinance and had instead arranged for administrators to be appointed” remarked ICC Judge Sally Barber.
A section from Mr Gladwin’s witness statement was quoted by the judge:
“My Business Estate was a very profitable business with an enormous potential, however this was effectively stolen from under me. When Lendy realised that they could not slow my business down they put it into administration to take and destroy everything.”
Criticism was made of the apparent conflict of interest said to exist because the joint administrators of Lendy and separately Killean Estate Limited were partners of the same firm.
The judge described these “serious (albeit unparticularised) allegations of fraud and wrongdoing” as “potentially damaging to [the joint administrators’] professional reputations“.
“plainly essays in make-believe“
The two-page particulars of claim, asked for, among other things “damages and losses to be assessed and estimated in the region of £23M, with the rights reserved to alter the figure as necessary.‘”
The so-called schedule of damages was “not supported by evidence and were plainly essays in make-believe“. Ouch.
An amendment was later requested allowing Mr Gladwin to claim for “‘past damages’ totalling £14,145,642 (plus interest) and sums described as ‘future’ damages“. The Judge described the proposed amendment as “not coherent and [not] properly particularised“.
In a rather damning summing up Judge Barber gave reasons for why “the Claim and related applications were in any event bound to fail“.
Firstly Mr Gladwin was mistaken for targeting the claim against RSM. RSM was not an administrator of either company, some of their partners were. “RSM has never owed any kind of duty to the Claimant … As such, the claim against RSM is hopeless” said the judge.
An attempt to join the actual joint administrators’ was also doomed to fail as “all three individuals have ceased to be administrators and, … have been discharged from liability in respect of any of their actions in that role“.
In any event Mr Gladwin was the wrong claimant – “Whilst the administrators owed duties to the Company, the Company has been dissolved. No application for restoration to the register has been made and the Claimant does not represent the Company“.
It is not known how many of these procedural defects were brought to the attention of Mr Gladwin by his solicitors Clarke Willmott LLP before they ‘came off the record’ a few days before the October hearing. This left Mr Gladwin on his own without the assistance of lawyers.
Clarke Willmott LLP would have been considered an interesting firm to use in a Lendy case. as they were one of the three law firms on “Lendy’s Legal Panel” and is understood to have been involved in approving a number of loans on the platform.
A professional negligence claim against the law firm was made by Lendy, in administration, in May 2021, although the claim was ultimately discontinued before any pleadings were publicly filed.
It is understood Mr Gledwin has made an application to appeal. The status of that application is not yet known.
Mouse in the Court 
Basically the poor sod has likely been defrauded by some sharp practice but has made a pig’s ear of the claim. He should have looked at the troubles RBS GRG victims have faced in similar situations and saved his time and money.
LikeLike