A company lawyer who was instrumental in winning a landmark legal victory for hundreds of holiday chalet owners in Cornwall deliberately misled a court, a judge has concluded.
Charles Knapper, a senior partner at Fursdon Knapper in Plymouth, failed to reveal the existence of key documents including a transcript of a meeting which could have affected the outcome of the case, according to a lengthy judgment handed down this week.
The damning verdict came in the latest instalment in a long-running £2 million legal dispute between chalet owners at Atlantic Bay, in St Merryn, near Padstow, and site owners Martin and Rebekah Francis who took over the park and doubled the maintenance fees.
Solicitor Charles Knapper, a former Royal Navy submariner who partly represented the group, was singled out for severe criticism by Judge Barry Cotter, who characterised the dispute as descending into open "warfare".
Judge Cotter said Mr Knapper's comments in court had been "misleading, and deliberately so".
"I have concluded, with some sadness, that Mr Knapper, a very experienced litigation specialist, had developed a settled intention to prevent what he must have considered potentially helpful documentation coming in to the hands of Mr and Mrs Francis," he wrote.
Lawyers for the owners successfully argued in the High Court in 2010 that the chalets on the park were "dwellings" and were therefore protected under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
This left jubilant chalet owners confident they would be due thousands of pounds in refunds from Mr and Mrs Francis, who bought the site for £1.35 million in 2008.
The decision is expected to have far-reaching effects in protecting park home owners from being subjected to huge fee rises in order to pay for maintenance.
Atlantic Bay had been run as a co-operative between chalet owners known as Point Curlew since 1975 before being sold to the couple after the park's management company ran into financial difficulties.
When Mr and Mrs Francis took over, the owners of the 155 chalets believed they had been absolved of financial responsibilities other than maintenance fees.
But trouble flared when fees of £1,250, excluding VAT, were imposed in 2008 and then increased to £2,710 in 2009 and £2,800 in 2010.
Much of the legal dispute centred around whether the chalet owners, which included Mr Knapper, had known about major defects at the site, which resulted in the fee hike.
Complaints about Mr Knapper's conduct were first made by a barrister representing Mr and Mrs Francis at a hearing in March to decide who pays the massive legal costs relating to the 2010 hearing.
Jonathan Seitler QC, representing Mr and Mrs Francis, claimed Mr Knapper had known relevant documents were stored in an unused chalet.
He also alleged Mr Knapper had personally placed other important company documents out of reach of the court and in the hands of a liquidator, backed by an "undertaking" for them not to disclosed.
In his 46-page judgment, Judge Cotter said that there had been "substantial and systematic non-disclosure" by Mr Knapper, whose actions had been "designed to conceal", and his statement "disingenuous".
Judge Cotter added that he was "quite satisfied that there are matters arising that may have been put and may have had an impact on my judgment".
The case is expected to be finally resolved at a further hearing in the Court of Appeal, establishing the principle of how service charges should be charged for leasehold residential properties.
The serious finding against Mr Knapper could now be taken further by Mr and Mr Francis with a complaint to the legal regulator, the Solicitors' Regulation Authority, which could potentially trigger a disciplinary tribunal.
