Stalled: Zef's case thrown out by courts

Saturday 30 March 2019

A claim by multi-millionaire Zef Eisenberg against a former senior member of his Mad Max Race Team has been thrown out by Guernsey's Courts, after Judge Martin Thornton found the very basis of the case to be flawed.

Mr Eisenberg was suing former colleague James Larbalestier for £9,300, after a complaint had been made to the Planning Authority about a shed the speed-addict uses to test his turbo bikes. The complaint said that shed was being used incorrectly, but after a number of discussions between the Authority and Mr Eisenberg, the matter was resolved without any further action needed.

But Mr Eisenberg was then issued with a redacted copy of the complaint, and decided the information contained in it could have only been known by members of staff who worked in the shed. These staff, the court heard, had all been made to sign non disclosure agreements when working for Maxicorp to protect the shed's contents - this included many of Mr Eisenberg's custom vehicles, a moving road for testing, petrol and more. 

Bad blood between Mr Eisenberg (pictured) and Mr Larbalestier slowed down the petty debts hearing, as, after working with each other since 2012, the men's business relationship collapsed last year. Much of the trial became a 'mud slinging match' between the pair. 

Judge Thornton, however, found that the information communicated to planning was not confidential under the agreement Mr Larbalestier had signed in October 2017. He said: "applying the test of whether the information that was sent to the Planning Services had the necessary 'quality of confidence', while there was a reference for example to the vehicle dynamometer, this was not something that of itself appeared to be of such importance to Maxicorp as part of its development activities as to give it that necessary quality of confidence."

Mr Eisenberg's case relied on proving Mr Larbalestier had also made the complaint, either himself or through an agent, which it was alleged could have either been his father or wife.

But in the trial which took place earlier this week, Jim Rowles, the Director of Planning, appeared as a witness and confirmed the name on the complaint was not that of any of the Larbalestiers. All three also denied under oath any knowledge of who made the complaint. 

Mr Eisenberg then turned to trying to prove the timing of the complaint implicated Mr Larbalestier. It was sent to Planning three days after the two men had a spat over email. Mr Eisenberg was right to be suspicious of that, according to Judge Thornton: "To be fair to Mr Eisenberg I am troubled by the timing of the first complaint and also that it contained quite specific information. I can see why he might have his suspicions that it was the defendant who had in some way instigated it, however, having a suspicion or belief is a long way from being able to prove, even on a balance of probabilities, that it was the defendant.

"The defendant clearly refuted the allegation that it was his doing. The evidence of his witness, who I find gave their evidence truthfully, was that there was a large pool of people who knew, and therefore most likely others who also knew, who might have had the knowledge to complain or pass on the information to someone to complain.

"So, if it were necessary for me to decide on this issue, I find that Maxicorp have not succeeded in proving that it was the defendant or someone acting on his behalf who made the complaints."

A decision had to be made by the courts on whether to release the protected name of the complainant in the case. It was decided that was not going to happen, to protect public interest in anonymity when it comes to making a complaint in the future. Judge Thornton also said it would have not helped Mr Eisenberg's case in anyway because of the evidence Mr Rowles gave. 

Judge Thornton did conclude that had Mr Eisenberg been able to show it was Mr Larbalestier who instigated the complaint, and that the information was covered by the NDA he had signed, he would have awarded the majority of the money being claimed for. 

"By summary I find Maxicorp's claim is dismissed, and the court costs are to be payable by Maxicorp."