Reform UK treasurer’s company awarded £4.6m in damages from technology start-up

Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy’s company should receive more than £4.6 million in damages after being lied to “repeatedly and determinedly” to invest in a technology start-up, a High Court judge has ruled.

Candy Ventures Sarl (CVS), a portfolio of companies founded by Mr Candy, took legal action against Dutch businessman Robert Bonnier over allegations he “lied” to “deceive” it into investing around 7.5 million euro (£6.5 million) in Aaqua BV, which he directs.

Barristers for the company told a trial last month that Mr Bonnier claimed the firm would be the “next Facebook” and that Apple and LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) were set to invest one billion US dollars in Aaqua.

This led to CVS signing three agreements with Aaqua, which saw it swap shares in podcasting firm Audioboom for “worthless” shares in Aaqua.

The company asked a judge to rescind the investment or order Mr Bonnier and Aaqua to pay £5.7 million in damages.

On Wednesday, Mr Justice Bright ordered CVS was entitled to £4,623,919 in damages, as well as interest.

In a 30-page ruling, the judge said: “During the trial, Mr Bonnier confirmed that he was not involved in active negotiations with either Apple or LVMH representatives concerning imminent investment in Aaqua.

“Thus, I am satisfied that the representations were false, and he knew them to be false when he made them.

“I am satisfied that Mr Bonnier intended CVS to rely on his representation.”

He continued: “I am also satisfied that the representations in fact induced CVS to enter into the three agreements, and then to invest in Aaqua.”

Mr Bonnier represented himself at trial and, in August, was blocked from defending the claim for breaching court orders.

He told the court in London that while he “overstated the prospects of an investment” into Aaqua, he did not believe CVS would “rely” on it.

But Mr Justice Bright said: “The only explanation for Mr Bonnier lying so repeatedly and determinedly was in order to secure CVS’s investment.”

He continued: “The defendants had no realistic way of attracting investment, or of generating income, except by misrepresenting the position to any potential investor.”

View Comments