In paragraph 39 of the original particulars of claim, I referred to a meeting held at Mishcons office ‘on or about the day 23 August 2007’ during which Mr C.C. and I were shown the Withers Draft 1. I understand from paragraph 56 of the defendants’ defence that Mishcons does not admit that there was a meeting at the Mishcons offices on 23 August 2007 and states that Mr C.C. went to the Mishcons office that day simply to collect the Withers Draft 1.

While it is very clear to me what was said to Mr S.S. about Draft Withers 1 at a meeting with him (and which I know from my solicitors was not denied by the defendants), I could not and cannot recall whether it was on 23 or 24 August 2007. It may be correct that the meeting at which the Withers Draft 1 was discussed took place on 24 August 2007 and that Mr C.C. went to the Mishcons office where he met with Mr S.S. (albeit briefly) to collect the Withers Draft 1 on 23 August 2007. I note however that 23 August 2007 was a Thursday and that 24 August 2007 was a Friday. Accordingly, given my recollection of events, I consider it likely that the actual meeting and the one I attended took place on Friday 24 August 2007 (see below for details).
In both cases, Mr C.C. and I discussed the Withers Draft 1 at the meeting which took place at the Mishcons office. Mr. C.C. made it clear to Mr. S.S. that I was not happy with and was not prepared to accept the Draft Waiver Deed C.C. (Annex 2 to Draft Withers 1).

In particular, I told Mr S.S. (through Mr C.C.) that I could not accept the provisions which had not previously been part of the agreement, namely that: 220.1 I could not agree to indemnify the purchaser for the amount such that QPRH’s net completion assets were less than an undetermined amount always provided that the aggregate amount did not exceed £4,024,511.64; and 220.2 I could not agree to declare and warrant that all taxes and duties required and payable by QPRH had been correctly calculated and paid to the Revenue and HMRC.
Clearly neither of these arrangements could or would have been acceptable to me. Everyone knew that the team was in financial difficulty and, therefore, that QPRH’s net asset value was or could have been negative at the time (although this is not to say that the team was worthless). Further, Mr S.S. was well aware of the HMRC Petition and therefore knew that it was not a guarantee I could give because it was clearly not true. In any event, Mr C.C., on my part, made it clear to Mr S.S. that these two clauses had to be removed and could not be accepted.

[…] (full text with initials substituted)
Interestingly, before the Transaction came into effect and the documents were signed, Withers collected and was aware that the loan of £250,000 on 23 March 2006 belonged to D.D. and not to me. I note from Mr L.L.’s email sent at 8.58 a.m. on 31 August 2007 (see pages 468 of AC 1) that Withers had been told: ’by the team that this loan has indeed been included in the C.C. loan and is therefore no longer outstanding to D.D. himself. However, we have not seen any waiver by D.D. or other evidence of this.’
Given that Mr S.S. was copied on this email and, therefore, was well aware of the error in the Loan Schedule recording this D.D. loan as mine, not only did Mr S.S. did not take instructions from me, but continued to sign the Deed of Guarantee (as defined by me and which I discuss below) in full knowledge that there was at least an issue as to whether the money was still owed to D.D. and that, if so, I could not guarantee that no amount was outstanding towards D.D. and without attempting to check or correct the entry made in the Deed of Acknowledgement (see below).
A complaint was lodged with Scotland Yard about the matter.