Judge attacks Jordan's 'embarrassing' evidence after failure of £150m suit
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Eddie Jordan, the Formula One team boss, was castigated for "blatant inaccuracies" by a High Court judge yesterday, who described him as a "wholly unsatisfactory witness" during his £150m lawsuit against Vodafone.
In a scornful judgement that Mr Jordan's lawyers had fought to suppress, the Formula One team's case against the mobile phone giant was described as "false and without foundation".
Jordan Grand Prix Limited had accused Vodafone of reneging on a sponsorship agreement and misrepresenting its intentions, leading to massive losses for the company. But two days after the end of the six-week Commercial Court trial, the company opted to abandon its lawsuit and applied to prevent the ruling going public.
Mr Justice Langley, however, rejected the application, pointing out Mr Jordan had chosen to make serious allegations about a public company and could not "stifle the court" by simply running up the "white flag". In the lengthy written ruling yesterday, the judge said Mr Jordan's own evidence had been so inaccurate it had left him "reduced to embarrassed silence" in the witness box.
The trial had heard the case rested on a telephone conversation between Mr Jordan and David Haines, global branding director of Vodafone, in which the latter had said "You have got the deal".
That, Jordan's lawyers claimed, meant Mr Haines had agreed to a £100m, three-year sponsorship contract - but the telecommunications giant opted to go with Ferrari.
Vodafone denied it had committed itself to the team, insisting the damages claim was "wholly without merit". It was, Vodafone's lawyers said, "unheard of" in Formula One circles for any big sponsorship contract to be concluded verbally.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Langley said that the "inherent improbability" of such a major deal being struck in such a way was "more than fully matched by the reality."
"Jordan's claim was, in my judgment, plainly demonstrated to be without foundation and false," he said, adding: "I regret to say that I found Mr Jordan to be a wholly unsatisfactory witness. His evidence was in many instances in stark conflict with and indeed belied by the documents. Often documents of his own making.
"On occasions even Mr Jordan was unable to offer an explanation and was reduced to embarrassed silence by the exposure of blatant inaccuracies in what he was saying. The evidence he gave and the claims Mr Jordan makes became more and more contrived and unsustainable."
Mr Jordan did not comment on the ruling yesterday.