Newcastle's Amanda Staveley must pay £3.4m to Greek tycoon after court battle | Newcastle UnitedEdit

Newcastle United co-owner Amanda Staveley faces having to pay a Greek shipping magnate more than £3million after a high court legal battle.

Staveley had been served with a legal demand by businessman Victor Restis, who claimed she was obliged to pay him £3.4m owed for an investment he had made in her business ventures.

The businesswoman had asked the high court to dismiss Restis' request, and her lawyers said at a hearing in early March that she had “substantial grounds for denying liability” and that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration.

In a ruling on Monday, Insolvency and Companies Court Associate Judge Daniel Schaffer dismissed their bid, ruling that the dispute should be dealt with in court and that Staveley was responsible for paying the sum.

Reading out his judgment at London's Rolls Building, he said: “The claim totaling £3.4 million is strong.”

Restis has until April 22 to file a bankruptcy petition following the decision, unless Staveley pays the money owed before that date.

Ted Loveday, representing Staveley, previously told the court in written submissions that it was “common ground” that Restis had made a £10m investment in Staveley's business ventures in 2008.

He said there was “clearly a degree of ambiguity about whether this was a loan or some other form of investment”.

Restis initially issued a legal demand in May 2023 for a total of £36.8 million, which included the outstanding loan sum of £3.4 million and “exorbitant” interest of £31.3 million, Loveday said.

The tycoon's lawyers later withdrew their claims for interest and legal costs, instead claiming only the outstanding balance of the loan.

Loveday said the parties reached a settlement in May 2016 in which they agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration, that Staveley was not personally liable and that his company, PCP Capital Partners, would pay.

But the lawyer said his client was told to sign other documents between 2017 and 2021 that ultimately said Staveley was personally liable and gradually increased liability.

He claimed that these “instruments” were “obtained through duress, undue influence and/or misrepresentation,” and that Staveley felt intimidated into signing them.

However, the judge said Staveley's liability was “conclusively proven” in the documents and that “it is incredible” that she did not understand that she was responsible, adding that the claim “delves into the realm of fantasy and is completely implausible.”

The judge also said there was “no evidence” that Staveley was under duress by Restis or his lawyers.

He said: “There were clearly commercial pressures on Staveley but Restis had every right to press for payment.”

“Was there any illegitimate pressure? In my opinion, based on the facts of this case, no,” he continued.

He said messages between the pair indicated a “warm business relationship” that “cannot in any way be construed to support a claim of unlawful distress.”

In her written arguments, Raquel Agnello KC, representing Restis, said Staveley was sent documents, given time to review them and given the opportunity to make revisions before signing them, including one in 2021 that replaced previous agreements and held Staveley responsible.

Agnello told the court there was “a real lack of reality” to the allegations of unlawful conduct and that Staveley relied on “simple assertions” that were “inherently implausible”.

The judge also said Staveley, whom he described as an “astute businesswoman”, had “singularly failed” to show that her judgment was unduly influenced by her diagnosis of Huntingdon disease when she signed the documents.

He considered the allegations, as well as those of having been subjected to coercion, to be “unsustainable” and to have a “complete lack of credibility.”

Staveley did not attend court on Monday.

Following the decision, a spokesperson for her said: “Amanda Staveley takes note of today's Supreme Court ruling on her application to quash a legal claim brought by Victor Restis.

“Mrs Staveley notes and welcomes that the ruling has made a £33 million reduction in the interest-free principal-only claim.

“However, Ms Staveley continues to dispute personal responsibility and intends to lodge an appeal.”