Sponsored by
Leeds United chief Bates "invented evidence" for libel case, court told
Ken Bates and his witnesses were "prepared to invent evidence" in a bid to strengthen their libel defence against former Leeds United director Melvyn Levi, London's High Court heard.
Mr Levi, 65, is suing Mr Bates, 77, for libel damages over three articles written by the chairman in the club's match-day programme in 2006 and 2007, and a letter sent to fans in 2007.
The articles variously accused Mr Levi - whose address was also printed in one of the programmes - of being a shyster, an "enemy within", attempting to blackmail the club and scaring off potential investors.
The dispute arose after Mr Bates - who is fighting the claim tooth and nail - took over the club in early 2005 from the Yorkshire Consortium Trust, of which Mr Levi was a member.
Leeds's chairman both now and then, Mr Bates says that Mr Levi blocked the sale of the remaining shares in the club in September 2005 when he had no reason for doing so.
Mr Levi says he was never acting in a personal capacity – but rather for a company he was involved with called Cope Industrial Holdings - and there was a "genuine" legal dispute over whether or not a "call option" on the shares had lapsed.
As a result of Mr Levi's stance, further shares were issued in Leeds United, diluting the importance of the "call option" and leaving Mr Levi with, in Mr Bates's own words, a "self-induced bloody nose".
Today, during final submissions in the case, Mr Levi's barrister, Simon Myerson QC, told the judge, Sir Charles Gray, that while Mr Levi's witnesses were "worthy of belief", Mr Bates and his witnesses "are not".
He said much of Mr Bates's defence relied on accounts of oral conversations of which there are no notes, and he had tried to explain away the lack of documentation by a string of "excuses".
"The conclusion to which the court is invited is that Mr Bates and his witnesses were prepared to invent evidence to deal with a problem which they did not perceive until after the case began," said Mr Myerson, using the September 2005 share issue as an example.
"Mr Bates and his witnesses were incapable of belief", alleged Mr Myerson, who said evidence they allegedly "invented" went to the "heart of their case" and was "withheld until the evidence was being given".
Calling on Sir Charles to award Mr Levi substantial libel damages, Mr Myerson said Mr Levi had "made it clear" during his evidence to the court that he was "upset and aggrieved" by the allegations that Mr Bates had made and was "entitled to vindication".
"Mr Bates's conduct and his conduct of the case justify an award of aggravated damages towards the top of the bracket," said Mr Myerson.
"The use of the programme to pressure Mr Levi, the attribution to him of the failure of the rights issue, the publication of his name and address and the use of Mr Levi as a scapegoat are all matters which should sound in damages."
He added: "Mr Bates has not proved the truth of any of his factual allegations. He has not only failed to prove the facts he relies upon, he has consistently stated them in a way which was untrue as at the time of publication."
Later, Mr Myerson added: "No objective writer could have written what Mr Bates wrote."
Mr Levi had described Mr Bates's allegations that he was a "shyster" as anti-Semitic, but Mr Myerson has always said it isn't part of his case that Mr Bates is an anti-Semite.
However, he described Mr Bates's language as "unpleasant", and also criticised him for claiming in the witness box that ethnic minorities "share a common characteristic" of playing "the race card".
"It was disturbing and suggestive of a mind set which discriminates between minorities and others," said Mr Myerson. "It also supports Mr Levi's position that Mr Bates is not careful in his use of language".
But Ronald Thwaites QC, for Mr Bates, urged Sir Charles to find that the articles complained of were not defamatory.
He argued that they were either in the public interest or factually correct, and there was "ample evidence that the sting of the words complained of is true, as explored in depth at trial".
"Mr Levi, jointly with (business partner) Robert Weston, sought to apply pressure which was improper," claimed Mr Thwaites.
"Through such pressure, he sought to obtain benefits which were unwarranted morally, contractually and on any objective analysis of the rights and obligations of him and the club.
"Such conduct was accurately described by Mr Bates as blackmail, in the common use of that word. It was also dishonourable, disgraceful and unscrupulous".
Mr Thwaites alleged that Mr Levi had also acted "dishonourably" in the libel action, submitting "false statements of case" which indicated "awareness of unconsciable conduct".
Allegations that Mr Bates had issued new shares to deliberately dilute the importance of the call option had been "comprehensively refuted on the evidence", while it had been "all but admitted" that Mr Levi had made allegations of anti-Semitism against Mr Bates "with no proper basis".
And far from Mr Bates and his witnesses not telling the truth, said Mr Thwaites, it was actually Mr Levi whose evidence was "extremely unsatisfactory" and he appeared to be "willing to give evidence in adamant and certain terms which was simply untrue".
After hearing closing submissions in the case, Sir Charles has indicated that he will reserve his decision until an unspecified later date.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Leeds
Saturday 11 February 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: -2 C to 1 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: South
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 2 C to 5 C
Wind Speed: 8 mph
Wind direction: North west
