Jordan Vs. Vodafone:
Eddie Jordan's Version
Read Eddie Jordan's first affidavit, from February 2003.
Read Eddie Jordan's second affidavit, from February 2003.
MR. EDDIE PATRICK JORDAN, SWORN
EXAMINED BY MR. BOYLE
Q. Could the witness please be supplied with bundle B open at
tab 1. Do you have open the bundle at page 1?
Q. And is that a witness statement which you made and signed?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Let me just look for a moment at page 5. Do you see there is
a cross heading, "4th February meeting"?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you wish to correct anything in that heading?
A. It should, I believe, say the 14th.
Q. Subject to that qualification, are the contents of that
A. I made one discussion earlier about a change, that was a
name, that I was not happy with.
Q. Yes. If you go in the same bundle to tab 15, you will find
your second statement.
Q. Paragraph 14, page 161.
Q. Is there a correction you wish to make in that paragraph?
A. At the end of that last sentence, it should say "David
Haines", not "Peter Harris".
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: "Told me to ignore the letter".
A. Yes, Mr. Haines told me.
Q. Not Mr. Harris.
MR. BOYLE: Could we go back to the first statement at tab 1.
Are the contents of that statement true.
A. They are true.
Q. Then going to the contents of the second statement at tab 15,
subject to the qualification that you have just mentioned in
paragraph 14, are the contents of that statement true?
A. They are true.
Q. If you go to tab 29, you will find a third statement made by
you. Did you sign that statement?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are the contents of that statement true?
A. Yes, they are.
MR. BOYLE: Thank you very much.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. ALDOUS
Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. Could you first take bundle C5, please, and go, would you, to
Q. It has got a number at the bottom 1161B.
Q. Is your document entitled "Strategic Review Update"?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And that was an internal document, was it not, prepared by
Jordan on 12th February 2001?
A. I do not have a date but .... Is there a date?
Q. Look, if you like, at page 1161E.
Q. Where you will see the date that it was created.
MR. BOYLE: You said 12th February.
MR. ALDOUS: Did I say 12th February? I meant to say 12th April.
I am going to correct myself immediately. 12th April.
A. 12th April, yes.
Q. So that is an internal document prepared by Jordan on
12th April 2001.
A. Yes. I have the document.
Q. Do you know why that document was prepared?
Q. Do you know who Mr. Putt(?) is?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Who is he?
A. Mr. Putt was a consultant that we took on from Mackenzies to
help us out in Jordan Grand Prix.
Q. Who was the chief executive officer in charge of Jordan
relationships with Honda?
A. Me. I am the chief executive.
Q. Of Honda.
A. Pardon me; who was the chief executive of Honda?
Q. In charge of Jordan's relationship?
A. I would imagine it would be, at that time, either
Mr. Kamoto(?) or Mr. Fukui.
Q. Are you aware that that document was only disclosed after we
had asked for it during the trial?
A. No, I am not.
Q. You are not. This report, as we see, was prepared within
Jordan after, you say, Vodafone had agreed to sponsor Jordan?
A. Vodafone agreed to sponsor Jordan on 22nd March, so this was
later, I presume.
Q. Would you look at page 1161, at D, please, and would you read
out aloud, please, the two paragraphs under the heading
"Sponsorship", starting with the paragraph "Following our
A. Read it out loud?
Q. Yes, please.
A. "Following our discussions in Malaysia and Wada(?) san's
helpful letter of support, discussions are progressing with
Vodafone for a three-year 150 million title sponsorship
Q. And the next paragraph.
A. "We understand that Vodafone's options have narrowed to
Jordan and Ferrari and that a decision will be made at the
end of April."
Q. So that report does not say, does it, that Vodafone had
agreed to sponsor Jordan in March?
A. No, it does not.
Q. It does not say that Vodafone had agreed to sponsor Jordan at
all does it?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Does it say that Vodafone's options have narrowed to Jordan
and Ferrari and that you expect a decision to be made by
Vodafone at the end of April?
A. That is what the document says.
Q. And that document is saying that Vodafone might choose to
A. That is what the document says.
Q. If what is set out in that document is correct, if it is
correct, it must mean, must it not, that your claim that
Vodafone had already agreed to sponsor Jordan cannot be
A. I do not know who the source of this document was. If you
say it was Mr. Putt .... I do not know the source of it.
Q. It was Mr. Phillips.
A. I do not know the source of it. I do not know who wrote this
document. I have never seen it.
Q. Were you not in court when Mr. Phillips gave evidence?
Q. You were in court when Mr. Phillips was cross-examined by me
about this document. Mr. Jordan, you were.
A. I was in court.
Q. You were following what was going on.
A. I was paying attention as best I could to the court
Q. Yes, and quite an important part of Mr. Phillips'
cross-examination was this very document. You knew that.
A. I do not know that.
Q. And I suggest you have read this document before you have
come to give evidence?
A. I can promise you I have never written or seen this document
Q. Mr. Phillips has said, and he, may I suggest, is your
right-hand man -- I will come back to his role -- that you
prepared that document. We have got a draft of it in his
notebook. If what is set out in that document is correct, it
must mean, must it not, that your claim that Vodafone had
already agreed to sponsor Jordan cannot be right?
A. Not at all.
Q. How do you square the two?
A. Very simply, when the agreement was done and when it was
declared by Mr. Haines on the day of the 22nd, there was one
very important proviso, and that was that everything had to
be kept absolutely confidential.
Q. This is a confidential document, is it not, for internal use?
A. I think the difference between confidential and confidential
is obviously two very different situations. Irrespective of
your own position in the law, the same thing applies to
Jordan. When somebody tells you it is confidential, you have
to protect the confidentiality of every particular situation,
particularly if it is sensitive.
Q. Mr. Phillips I think said that that report was prepared or
sent to Honda. Did Mr. Phillips know that your conversation
with Mr. Haines on 22nd March was to be confidential?
A. Yes, he heard the conversation.
Q. I see. And he says this document was sent to Honda.
Honda were perhaps Vodafone's most important sponsor, were
they not, supplying the engines?
A. Pardon; could you repeat that please?
Q. Yes. Honda were ----
A. Jordan, not Vodafone.
Q. Quite right. --- Jordan's most important sponsors supplying
A. They were a partner. There is a very big difference between
partner and sponsor.
Q. Honda were Jordan's partner, supplying the engines?
Q. And Mr. Phillips has said that this document was sent to
Q. Giving them an update on the position. Now, look at the
paragraphs you have read out aloud. Mr. Phillips would
therefore know that what is being stated there on your
evidence was wrong?
A. That is absolutely not correct.
Q. I have asked you ----
A. There is such a thing as understanding that Vodafone had
requested us, as part of the deal, that they had made a very
clear view about the confidentiality because they needed the
maximum impact from the launch date in Monaco and you
preserve and respect those wishes. Otherwise what is the
point in having any deal or any business leaked in a
situation that is not important.
Q. If one did not want to disclose that you had agreed a
sponsorship contract with Vodafone at that stage, why write
anything at all in the document?
A. My understanding, and I have not seen this document before,
is that there was a request by Mr. Haines to me that part of
the leverage of the programme would be business to business
and that is particularly Jordan's forte, so Honda as a global
partner would be important to get on board at an early stage.
Q. Why write anything at all when Jordan are saying in this
document that Ferrari might get the sponsorship? Why write
anything at all if that is not true?
A. I cannot reply to that. I do not know.
Q. So what is being written in this document according to your
evidence is wrong?
A. I do not agree with that. I agree there was a set of
circumstances, which were very clear and very precise on the
22nd, from Mr. Haines in a telephone conversation about the
confidentiality of the need for that and that was absolutely
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: Could you repeat that question?
MR. ALDOUS: I will break it down, if I may. Is it wrong to
state in this statement that Vodafone might choose to sponsor
A. My mind was on something else; could I ask for the question
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: Yes, of course.
MR. ALDOUS: Is it wrong to state in this document, as at
12th April, that Vodafone might choose to sponsor Ferrari?
A. I cannot answer that. I do not know.
Q. Is it wrong to state in this document, at 12th April, that
the position was that one was progressing discussions with
Vodafone for a sponsorship, but that Vodafone might in the
end choose to sponsor Ferrari?
A. I think the confidentiality of the whole original agreement
is the most important factor and the other things fall into
place. By the nature of our business, confidentiality like
in certain other businesses -- banking, and in your own
business -- is that it is absolutely important to retain
Q. Look at those two paragraphs again, would you please,
Mr. Jordan, and would you tell me whether what is stated in
those two paragraphs was right or not? Was that the position
at 12th April or not?
A. I cannot answer what Mr. Phillips wrote, but I can only
recall clearly of the agreement and the undertaking that
I made to Mr. Haines about a confidentiality.
Q. Let me ask the question again, please. We are looking at
what is stated in that document, in those two paragraphs, and
I am asking you is what is stated in those two paragraphs
right or wrong?
A. (Pause for reading) I cannot answer what Mr. Philips is
Q. You can answer whether what is there being stated is right or
wrong. It is a very simple question. Is what is stated
there right or wrong?
A. What is there is not correct.
Q. Not correct. So, if Mr. Phillips was producing this report
to be sent to Honda, your partner, he was telling them
something which was incorrect; right?
A. I do not believe so.
Q. You do not believe he was telling ----
A. No, I do not believe so. I think that there has to be
certain integrity about preserving the wishes of a
Q. I understand that. I am just looking at this document and if
this document was sent to Honda, Honda, your partner, were
being told something that was incorrect?
A. No, I do not agree. I think they are being told something in
a manner of speaking that would prepare them for something,
that there would be requirements on behalf of Vodafone that
there would be a business to business and a potential and
possible working relationship that was already entered into
between Jordan and Vodafone.
Q. You have seen what is in this document, in these two
paragraphs, which you have said were wrong. You have told
his Lordship that the discussion or agreement, as you say, on
22nd March was to be confidential. Did you subsequently tell
Honda that you had an agreement with Vodafone?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You did? When did you tell them that?
A. I cannot recall the exact date.
Q. Let us try and recall because I suggest it cannot have been
before this document. Let us try and recall when you say you
A. I am sorry, I cannot recall.
Q. You cannot. Do you think it was within a few days of
A. I would only be making it up. I cannot recall.
Q. We recall Imola is a Grand Prix, do we not, on 13th to 15th
Q. Do you think you say you were telling them then?
A. I believe Mr. Fukui was there at that race.
Q. He may well have been and so may have many other people.
What I am concerned about is when you say you told
A. I cannot recall.
Q. You cannot recall. Do you think it could have been then?
A. I cannot recall.
Q. How do you know you did? How do you know you told them?
A. Because there are two people at the hierarchy of Honda.
One is Mr. Honda himself and the other is Mr. Fukui, who is
the president of Honda Motor Company, with which I had a very
close relationship. At that level I was able to be able to
take into his confidence and his into me the discussion with
regard to Vodafone.
Q. So the agreement you say you reached with Mr. Haines about
utmost confidence did not extend to Honda?
A. I have to be accurate and make sure we clearly understand.
When you are dealing with the chief executive and the
president of Honda Motor Company, and we are partners, not
sponsors, partners, I think there is a reasonable
understanding that confidentiality can be interlocked on the
clear understanding that you are confiding in them and they
Q. So at the moment, where we are, are we, is that we have got a
document prepared by Mr. Phillips which is telling Honda one
thing and then you personally are telling Honda another.
Is that right?
A. That may seem that way.
Q. That is odd, is it not?
A. Not at all. Not at all.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Phillips that you had actually told Honda
that Vodafone had agreed to sponsor Jordan? Did you tell
Mr. Phillips that?
A. I probably did.
Q. It must have been a bit embarrassing for Mr. Phillips if he
has prepared a document telling them one thing and you
telling them another?
A. It is quite normal that when one commercial department is
telling another commercial department, and lots of people who
are not known to each other, there is one set of parameters
that would apply to the courtesy and the respect that you
would have for Vodafone's decision and their strong request.
I think perhaps it is important to realise that the impact on
a launch and a presentation of a sponsorship deal is such a
major thing in both the press and the image for Vodafone or
any other participating sponsor. When you have that
situation, the confidentiality is vital if you are going to
get the right impact. So, it is not at all. This is common
practice in our business.
Q. Did you tell MasterCard that Vodafone had agreed to sponsor
A. No, I did not.
Q. You did not?
Q. Did you tell Volker Jung that Vodafone had agreed to sponsor
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So the confidence does not quite extend as far as Dr. Jung;
you can tell him?
Q. But you did not tell MasterCard?
A. I did not tell MasterCard.
Q. And presumably Mr. Phillips would not tell MasterCard, would
A. Mr. Phillips did not deal with MasterCard.
Q. Can I move to a different topic, and that is the position of
Q. You can put C5 away for the moment. We will come back to
that document more than once. You are going to be provided
with bundle E1. Perhaps just before we do that, Mr. Jordan,
would you just look at a document -- keep E1 there -- in C6,
please, tab 48. Is this a letter that you sent?
A. I cannot be certain.
Q. Does it have your signature?
Q. Did you see it? It says "dictated, not seen." Did you see
A. I would have to read it.
Q. By all means.
A. (Pause for reading) I believe I have seen this, yes.
Q. Shall we just look at the fourth paragraph. You refer in the
third paragraph, do you not, to the telephone conversation of
22nd March? Do you see that? "Your telephone call to Ian
and I on 22 March".
Q. Third paragraph.
A. Third. I thought you said fourth. "I believe that we were
always correct ..."
Q. "... at 6.20 pm confirmed this when you categorically stated
'you've got the deal'". Do you see that?
Q. "Naturally I informed my partners who had taken the trouble
to contact you, Honda and MasterCard ..." Did you tell
MasterCard or is that wrong?
A. "... I informed my partners who had taken the trouble to
Q. Honda and MasterCard.
Q. Did you tell MasterCard that Vodafone had agreed to sponsor
A. I do not believe I did.
Q. So what is stated there in that letter, which you had seen
and approved, is wrong?
A. I do not believe I told MasterCard that we had definitively
finalised with Vodafone.
Q. Why are you saying it in that letter?
A. We had written to MasterCard at the request of Vodafone.
I think what is important in this particular line here is
that there is Honda, there is MasterCard, there is Infineon
and Siemens. These were all hugely important in terms of
business to business relationships. MasterCard with dealt
with by somebody else inside the company, Mark Gallagher, and
Dr. Jung and Honda were my responsibilities, I think as
I said earlier, because they were deemed to be partners, and
technical partners. With regard to MasterCard, I believe a
letter was sent to them giving them as clear as possible an
indication of the Vodafone position without spelling it out.
Q. And let us be quite clear. You did not tell MasterCard that
Vodafone had agreed to sponsor Jordan, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. So what you are there stating in that letter is in that
A. I have to say, again, that we wrote to them giving them a
clear outline in between the lines what was intended.
Q. Mr. Jordan, just look at the paragraph and read it to
yourself. Do you accept that what is stated in that
paragraph in relation to MasterCard is wrong? You did not
tell them of the decision on 22nd March.
A. I did not tell them.
Q. So here on 1st June 2001, you are telling Mr. Haines in part
something which you now accept was wrong?
A. I do not believe it is wrong.
Q. And it was wrong because you had not told MasterCard?
A. I am sorry, I believe that is misleading because we had made
a very strong letter to MasterCard, which did not go on the
correct date, and we needed to tell them because of the huge
value that MasterCard presented. They had 660 million card
holders and it was vital that Vodafone could tap into that.
So, therefore, of course we made a contact with MasterCard,
outlining in great detail what the opportunities could be,
and informing them of the position without actually spelling
it out in clear because we did not have the contact at the
chief executive level.
Q. We will come now to the position of Gallaher, if we may, and
we will pick up your challenge, if I may, about misleading.
So let us look at the position of Gallaher, if I may.
A. Sorry; do I look at something?
Q. We are going to in a moment. You can put your C6 away and,
if you like, to avoid turning it up later you can turn to tab
19 in E1.
A. I have had a crash here, please.
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: Hand it to the person on your left,
Mr. Jordan. He will put it together.
MR. ALDOUS: Tab 19, please.
Q. Is that a Gallaher sponsorship contract of 29th January 1997?
Q. And Gallaher's option, as you knew, Mr. Jordan, to extend
their title sponsorship after December 1999 was governed by
clauses in that sponsorship contract, was it not, as amended
A. I would have to see. I do not handle the contracts. But if
you could point me to the thing, I am sure you are correct.
Q. I will. Look at 288 first, which identifies you having
signed that contract on behalf of Jordan?
Q. Then, if we may look, please, at page 262 under the heading
"TERM AND RENEWAL."
Q. I want you to read to yourself particularly paragraph 6.3,
which I think is quite simple to understand?
A. That is on 263.
Q. Yes. You are going to start the heading "TERM AND RENEWAL".
Just read in to 6.3, and concentrate particularly on 6.3,
A. (Pause for reading) Yes.
Q. You have no doubt seen a number of sponsorship contracts,
have you not?
A. I have.
Q. And you have no doubt executed many of them on behalf of
A. I have.
Q. And you are no doubt familiar with what they have to cover in
terms of rights and obligations and matters of that sort?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Looking at 6.3, after December 1999, Gallaher's right to
continue as title sponsors each year was dependent upon their
being able to agree an acceptable fee with Jordan.
Q. And if they could not agree an acceptable fee with Jordan,
the only restriction on Jordan was that they could not offer
title sponsorship to any other party on more favourable terms
than those offered to Gallaher.
Q. Go into tab 24, would you, in the same bundle and look, if
you would, at the second paragraph, "This option is to be
exercised by 31 July 2000 in respect of the 2002 Season but
we have agreed that this date should be extended so that
Gallaher may exercise this option by no later than
28th September 2000." Do you see that?
Q. So Gallaher's option for title sponsorship for 2002, such as
it was, was first extended by agreement to 28th September
A. Yes; but I do not know if we have signed it by -- yes, we
have. Mr. Phillips has signed it.
Q. So you can now put E1 away and take E2. We are going to
tab 25, which is a letter from Mr. Barry Jenner, the managing
director of the UK division of Gallaher, to Mr. Phillips?
Q. Apart from dealing with the fee for 2001, we are going to
look at paragraph number 2. "In relation to the option to
extend the Terms of the Agreement contained in Clause 6.3
thereof as amended by the letter of 25 July 2000, the
deadline for exercise of the option by Gallaher will be
further amended to read 28 February 2001." Do you see that?
Q. This is not a countersigned letter, but you were aware, were
you not, that that option had been extended by agreement to
A. I could not be certain, but I would expect so.
Q. So that meant, did it not, that unless that option was
exercised by 28th February, or extended by further agreement,
it lapsed on 28th February?
A. If what is here was accepted, that is what it would imply.
With Gallaher it is something quite different.
Q. Let us take the documents first and if you want to explain
later we will give you the opportunity. Let us take the
documents first. We have seen the previous extension.
We have seen the proposed extension here to 28th February
2001. Let us just proceed on the basis that that was agreed
to and then I will put this question, if I may. That would
mean, would it not, that unless the option was exercised by
21st February or extended by further agreement, it would
lapse on 28th February?
Q. You may need to look at E2 in a moment, so put that to one
side, and follow the sequence, if you would, in bundle C2,
which you will be handed. You need to clear your desk ----
A. Excuse me, were you going to offer me an opportunity ----
Q. By all means add to that or I am going to show you the
A. I see. We are not finished the sequence?
A. OK, fine. Thank you.
Q. Keep that aside. Keep that page open. If you want to have
anything at any stage, do. You have quite a lot of documents
in front of you. Let us just see if your assistant can put
one or two away to make it easier for you.
Q. C2, please, and I think it is at tab 47. E J is you; right?
Q. And Dominic is Dominic Shorthouse?
Q. So this is a fax from Ian Phillips to you and Mr. Shorthouse
of 8th February 2001?
Q. So we are looking at a date 20 days or so before that
28th February expiry date, just to get your mind clear.
Just look at that. Would you read that document? It is one
and a half pages. Do not bother for the moment to go to the
schedule, which I will take you to. (Pause for reading)
Have you read that?
Q. So we will see, will you not, before we look at it, that
Mr. Phillips had produced some work projections on the money
that would be needed for 2002?
A. Yes, it appears so.
Q. Did you note, really in the last main paragraph on 543, the
comment there, "I have also taken the liberty of telling him
[Charlie Perring] that Vodafone's projected spend is barely
50% of what we need to achieve." Do you see that?
Q. Help me, Mr. Jordan, in broad term, what did you understand
Vodafone's projected spend was for 2002?
A. At that particular moment?
A. $50 million.
Q. He produced some schedules, if you want to turn over to
page 545, and you just have a little look at the figures for
the moment, and would you look at the column for full year
estimate for 2002?
Q. I think I am right that the figures in the columns are in
pounds sterling, but have a look?
Q. So if we look at total cash sponsorship, you see a figure of
£65 million sterling?
Q. One can see immediately from those figures, can one not,
Mr. Jordan, that there was no way that those figures could be
achieved with Gallaher continuing as title sponsors but only
paying £17 million or £17 million?
A. No, not impossible. We still had quite a long way to go
before the start of the season, the 2002 season.
Q. Let us be realistic rather than theoretical. I suggest to
you, Mr. Jordan, that it was quite obvious that there was no
way that your budget could be achieved for 2002 with Gallaher
continuing as a title sponsorship but only paying £16 million
or £17 million. Realistically, that is right, is it not?
A. I said it is unlikely, but it is possible.
Q. You tell me how it is possible if they are only paying £16
million or £17 million how you are going to meet that budget
A. There are endless ways because there is at least one full
year of marketing and opportunities of different other people
and you never know what is going to happen.
Q. We have seen the figures and you say unlikely.
A. I am a total optimist.
Q. Not a realist?
A. I am an optimist.
Q. You are an optimist. You need now to go to E2 again and we
are going to go to tab 26 because we have looked at the
position of 8th February. Would you go to tab 26, please,
page 302, which is a further letter from Mr. Barry Jenner to
Mr. Phillips of 28th February. Tell me when you have it
A. Yes. I have.
Q. I am going to ask you, please, to look at the paragraph
starting, "At our meeting on 13 February I advised" -- this
is Mr. Jenner writing -- "that we were not in a position to
continue as title sponsor for 2002/2003.
"However, to preserve our position, and in the
interests of confidentiality, and in consideration of the
ongoing discussions between us covering sponsorship in 2002
and 2003 seasons, we propose that in relation to the option
to extend the Term of the Agreement contained in Clause 6.3
thereof (as amended by the Letters of Agreement dated 25 July
2000 and 8 December 2000), the deadline for exercise of the
option by Gallaher will be further extended to read 31 March
"It would be appreciated if you would confirm your
agreement to the above by signing and returning a copy of
this letter if possible by return.
"In the meantime and as promised, I writing to set out
briefly Gallaher's proposals in respect of the 2002 and 2003
season. These are in essence that Gallaher will become the
secondary sponsor for the 2002 and 2003 seasons in
consideration of a sponsorship fee of £10 million in 2002 and
£11 million in 2003.
"These proposals are of course subject to agreeing a
contract dealing with all aspects of the sponsorship
including the rights and benefits to be afforded to Gallaher
in return for its continued sponsorship.
"I look forward to finalising with you the terms of the
sponsorship agreement for the 2002 and 2003 seasons by the
end of March ..." Do you see that?
Q. And you saw that letter, did you not, at the time?
A. I do not believe so.
Q. There was a meeting on 13th February. Do you see that? "At
out meeting on 13 February".
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Did you attend that meeting?
A. I cannot be certain.
Q. Let us try and work on probabilities, if we may. Do you
think you attended that meeting?
A. I believe I did, but I cannot be certain.
Q. At that meeting, Mr. Jordan, Jordan made its position clear,
did it not, as to how much money it needed in 2002?
A. I do not know.
Q. It is likely, is it not?
A. You were going to give me the opportunity to explain about
her Gallahers. I am not sure when it is ready; if you could
let me know I would appreciate it.
Q. If it is relevant to where we are at this present moment, by
A. I think it is very important to know that Mr. Phillips and
Barry Jenner were in dialogue with each other, as they
normally are, and Barry Jenner, as you will see, is managing
director of the UK division, and this was a brand new
appointment to him because Mr. Northridge, who is my contact,
is now the chief executive of the whole group. I would
negotiate, as I have done since 1996. They have been
outstanding sponsors to Jordan in that period and we owe a
huge debt to them. Mr. Northridge is a personal friend of
mine, but also we do a lot of this juggling, if you like, of
business to make sure that we get the best possible
opportunities together. Mr. Jenner is clearly pointing out
what the UK division -- he is pointing out his marker here --
are prepared to pay. I will talk to Mr. Northridge when the
time is right about title sponsorship because they have been
title sponsors since 1996, and it was something that they
were not going to let up on.
Q. Come back to 13th February where you may have been.
I suggest to you that at that meeting Jordan made its
position clear as to how much money it needed for 2002.
A. I am saying to you I am not sure I was at that meeting.
Is that not what we are saying?
Q. Mr. Jenner made it clear at that meeting that Gallaher were
not in a position to continue as title sponsors for 2002 at
that level -- what you needed. That was made clear, was it
A. Mr. Jenner is making absolute sense here. It is very clear
what he says, but whether or not this is reality, which we
talked about, and whether what would actually come out of it
in the situation with Gallahers and my negotiations with
Nigel Northridge, I would suggest does not bear any
relationship to what is here.
Q. Let us look at what is here. Let us look at the meeting on
13 February, if we may. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Jordan,
you knew full well that there had been a meeting on
13th February, which you may well have been at, and at that
meeting Jordan had explained how much money it needed for
2002 and Mr. Jenner -- and others may have been at that
meeting -- made it clear that Gallaher were not in a position
to continue as title sponsors at the sort of level of money
that was needed by Jordan.
A. That is what Mr. Jenner was saying.
Q. Looking at the letter, however, they said they wanted to
continue as principal or secondary sponsors and were willing
to pay up to 10 million, were they not, for 2002?
A. That is what they say.
Q. But that is subject to agreeing an appropriate secondary
A. I think, first of all, they had to .... Yes, exactly and
they had to get the extension of the option.
Q. That meeting, I suggest, got down to discussing figures in
A. I do not know.
Q. Jordan were not prepared to confirm agreement, were they, to
that letter of 28th February?
Q. Jordan did not want to extend Gallaher's option period beyond
28th February. However unlikely it was that Gallaher could
ever match the sort of money that Jordan were looking for,
they did not want to extend that option period, did they?
A. I do not believe it ever got signed.
Q. Not that it did not only not get signed ----
A. We did not wish to.
Q. You did not wish to. You wanted to have a completely free
hand, did you not, in searching for another title sponsor for
A. I do not think that was right. I think it was a matter of me
dealing with Nigel Northridge at that time, as we had always
done from the very beginning, and I think contracts, even at
the beginning, were never produced till well after the
operation of the actual agreement. At the very early stage,
there was no contract for some time. This is a clear
indication there was a relationship between myself and the
chief executive -- Nigel Northridge and myself -- that went
far beyond these letters.
Q. Let us still look at the letters. You have accepted that you
did not want to extend the option period and you did not sign
the letter and send it back.
A. What we did not accept, and I would not accept, was that we
would not have the title sponsor.
Q. In fact, you did not confirm agreement to that letter at all,
A. I believe not.
Q. So if we go on to tab 28, the first response to that letter
is not until 20th March; right?
A. (No verbal response).
Q. Long after that option period had expired?
Q. Read to yourself, would you, that letter? You need not read
it out aloud.
A. (Pause for reading) Yes.
Q. So that letter was in part clarifying Jordan's and Gallaher's
mutual criteria for extending the agreement and clarifying
the conversation you had had with Nigel Northridge on
Q. So the position is, is it not, that that letter was sent long
after the option period had expired, and you have agreed to
Q. And so Gallaher's option had been deliberately left to lapse,
had it not, at the end of February?
A. Deliberately is not my interpretation of it, no.
Q. Had been left to lapse at the end of February?
A. It would appear so.
Q. It had been left to lapse at the end of February whether or
not Jordan obtained title sponsorship from Vodafone or Orange
or Deutsche Post or whoever?
A. It was left to lapse.
Q. We can then put E2 away and go back to C5, if we may. We are
going to go back to our old favourite, if we may, the report
of 12th April, so you want tab 70A. Go to page 1161D,
please. Have you got 1161D?
A. Indeed, yes.
Q. Do you see the heading "Sponsorship"?
Q. Would you read, please, out aloud the last paragraph,
starting "We have kept Benson & Hedges"?
A. "We have kept Benson & Hedges abreast of the position and in
any case have asked them to relinquish the title for 2002 as
it is beyond their budget."
Q. What is there stated in that paragraph you have read out was
entirely accurate, was it not?
A. I think as far as Mr. Phillips is concerned this is accurate.
Q. But you were quite obviously keeping Mr. Phillips abreast of
what was being discussed with Mr. Northridge, as we have seen
in the letter of 20th March.
A. Not necessarily. Mr. Northridge and I have been personal
friends for a very long time and there were certain things
.... He was the new chief executive of this company and of
course he had to manage his position and see what he wanted
to do. It was vital for him to keep. About the last
possible opportunity that a tobacco company had was through
motor racing. Therefore, he valued that very much.
Q. How could Mr. Phillips on your behalf deal with Mr. Jenner in
the way that you and Jordan wanted it without your taking
Mr. Phillips into your confidence?
A. I do not think it was so much that. I think it was the way
that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Jenner, who was new to that
position, had a dealing and a relationship with.
Q. Do you accept that what is stated in that paragraph which you
have read out is that whether or not Jordan got the Vodafone
sponsorship, they had asked Gallaher to relinquish the title
sponsorship for 2002 as it was realistically beyond their
A. I do not think that is accurate.
Q. Do you think that that is an accurate statement of what is
A. That is what is stated there.
Q. It is, is it?
A. What you have just read out is stated there.
Q. And that is saying, is it not, and I ask you what the
document is saying, that whether or not Jordan had got the
Vodafone sponsorship, they had asked Gallaher to relinquish
title sponsorship for 2002 as it was realistically beyond
their budget. That is what it is saying, is it not?
Q. But you say that is wrong?
A. No. I am saying that is what is there.
Q. But you are saying, in fact, in truth that what is there
stated is wrong?
A. I am saying that what Mr. Phillips has prepared here is for a
strategic review update and I would ask you to please try and
understand that there are relationships that I would have
with senior executives in major companies that have a
relationship with me that would not necessarily be quite
easily well-known or appreciated through the rest of the
Q. Why say anything at all about Benson & Hedges in the
A. I cannot answer that.
Q. You cannot answer that?
A. I cannot answer that.
Q. We are going to go back, if we may, to bundle C3. Go to
tab 69, please, Mr. Jordan. Now, just read to yourself, but
not out aloud, the third paragraph, "Needless to say."
(Pause for reading) Do you see the date 20th February?
Q. Some seven days or so after the meeting on the 13th?
Q. The meeting with Mr. Jenner on the 13th; do you remember?
A. I am not sure I was there.
Q. But you know the one I am talking about?
A. I am aware.
Q. If that letter from Mr. Jenner -- do you remember the one we
looked at a moment ago?
A. On the extension or the ----
Q. Which you did not reply to.
Q. Do you remember the letter? If what is stated in that letter
accurately records what had happened at the meeting on
13th February, you, Jordan, knew from that date onwards that
there was no way that you were going to agree any extension
of the option to Gallaher and there was no way that Gallaher
were going to have the right to title sponsorship for 2002.
You would have known that by 20th February.
A. I cannot accept that.
Q. But you would accept, would you not, Mr. Jordan, it would be
wholly improper to have used Mr. Perring as a conduit to
suggest to Vodafone you had a deadline to decide whether to
go with Gallaher for title sponsorship or Vodafone?
That would be improper to have suggested that, would it not?
A. If that was the case, it would be improper.
Q. We will need, I think, C3. It depends whether your desk is
full or not. I am going to ask you to go to a witness
statement in B7 and I am going to ask you to look at a
paragraph in a witness statement of Mr. Harris's at tab 7,
page 103, paragraph 65. I will just help you. If you are on
the page -- are you?
Q. Just go back to the previous page and look at paragraph 58.
All we need note is that we are dealing with the date of
13th March. That is all you need note, the date; all right?
Q. Then you are going to go forward, if you would, to
A. Yes. And to read it?
Q. Please read it to yourself, yes, thank you. (Pause for
reading) We are now at 13th March and I think you would also
agree with me, would you not, that it would be quite wrong
for Mr. Philips to have said or insinuated that there was any
deadline for deciding whether to renew title sponsorship with
A. The position with Gallaher, as we are very clear, was a very
movable feast. You can see there were lots of different date
changes regarding the option date that they had. I am not
familiar exactly what the date was in this particular month.
Q. But, Mr. Jordan, you would not have lent yourself to making
such an insinuation, would you?
A. Which insinuation, please?
Q. In effect, that Vodafone had better hurry up because you
might want to enter into a title sponsorship with Gallaher.
Wow would not have passed that impression on, would you?
A. I would absolutely pass that impression on if I was in the
manner of dealing with Mr. Northridge who I could have done a
deal with at any stage. This was something that had been
going on for some time. I think the discussions for the 2002
season had actually started in Indianapolis between
Mr. Shorthouse, myself and Nigel Northridge. I think there
is a very special relationship here -- it is hard to describe
that in this court -- of the understanding and the loyalty
that we have to Benson & Hedges. So, therefore, I think
whatever was going on and whatever Mr. Phillips was saying
here, I am saying anything could have happened between myself
and Mr. Northridge, as was always the case.
Q. You see what Mr. Harris is stating there; there is no way
that Vodafone wanted to stop Jordan from doing whatever
Jordan wanted to. He describes it as losing a bird in the
A. I see what it reads.
Q. It does not stop there. I am sorry for jumping about.
You will need to take C8, at 1814. It is the way of things
that we jump between the documents. These sort of mythical
deadlines, Mr. Jordan, come and go. Just look at this note
of Mr. Phillips', 27th March. I am not going to ask you to
decipher it, but do you see the sentence "letter was if
you've got to move you must"? Do you see that?
A. What was that?
Q. Do you see there in the middle where it is recorded "letter
was if you've got to move you must"?
Q. It would be quite wrong, would it not, for Mr. Phillips to
have suggested in March that Jordan was under any deadline
for making a decision with Gallaher?
A. I cannot reply to that if that is what Mr. Phillips' belief
Q. There was not any deadline, was there?
A. I believe there was a deadline in Mr. Jenner's mind, but to
be very honest about the situation, the reality between
myself and the relationship that I had with Mr. Northridge
was something beyond that.
Q. Do I understand your evidence correctly, that you told
Gallaher at the Imola Grand Prix some time between 13th
and 15th April that Jordan had been awarded the Vodafone
A. That is correct.
Q. And do I understand correctly, that you say you told Gallaher
that on the strength of the telephone agreement you say you
had with Mr. Haines on 22nd March?
A. That is correct.
Q. If we could look at your third witness statement in bundle B,
may we, I think it is divider 29, read to yourself, would
you, paragraphs 3 and 4?
Q. You are saying there, are you not, that if Mr. Haines had not
said what you say he said on 22nd March, you would have
entered into a title sponsorship with Gallaher for 17 million
A. I believe at least 17 million.
Q. But we have seen the document, the internal report, which was
produced, I think, after you made that statement. Do you
want the look at it again in C5, 70A. By all means look at
Q. 70A, 1161, at D. You have seen that, have you not? 1161 at
A. At D?
Q. Yes. You have seen it before.
Q. C5. You just had it a moment ago. What had you got before?
We have been reading out from a document ----
A. It is not there.
Q. --- quite happily a moment ago, from a document in C5, and it
now does not appear to be in the witness bundle. Can we just
clarify, because I am not sure -- you have been accurately
reading out from a document in the witness bundle which now
does not appear to be there.
A. I have 1161D.
Q. It is there?
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: You have tab 70A, have you?
MR. ALDOUS: Let us stick with the witness bundle. We have
looked at it before.
A. 1161D, yes.
Q. We have seen from that 12th April report, if it is right,
that you were not going to renew your title sponsorship with
Gallaher whether or not Vodafone sponsored Jordan. That is
what that document says.
A. There is no doubt that this is a form of negotiation. We are
talking about the 2002 season. Mr. Jenner was talking to
Mr. Phillips and the relationship of whether and how the deal
would be structured will always be done between Mr. Nigel
Northridge and myself, as it has been done since 1996.
Q. We have looked at some figures, internal figures, which show
that you could not balance the books on the 17 million for a
title sponsorship. We have looked at the figures. We have
seen what was in this document, which was disclosed after
your witness statement was signed, saying you had asked them
to relinquish the title sponsorship for 2002 as beyond their
budget. That is what it says. But in your witness statement
you signed, you said that if Mr. Haines had not said what he
said, you would have signed the title sponsorship with
Gallaher for 16 or 17 million?
A. I am saying at least that; at least that. It is hard to
describe, as I have already said, to the court the
relationship that we had. We made it very clear to Benson &
Hedges that they realised what budget they had and of course
if we wanted to move forward and try to fight for the world
championship, there was going to be a need for more money.
They accepted that. Mr. Northridge accepted that. They knew
Q. You just could not have afforded to sign title the
sponsorship for 17 million, could you?
A. You could afford to do anything, but it just depends on what
your resources are therefore left to do afterwards. You need
to stay in business. That is the priority of this action.
If 17 million was the maximum you could get for your title
sponsorship, then that is what you would take. But we were
at the very early stage of 2001 and we are talking about 2002
Q. It looks, does it not, as if there is an inconsistency
between what you were saying in your witness statement and
what Mr. Phillips has written in that report?
A. I cannot answer for Mr. Phillips.
Q. Now, in E2, which you need to go back to -- still sticking
with Gallaher -- I am going to ask you to look at tab 29.
Q. A letter from Mr. Phillips of 30th May.
Q. Do you see that?
"Further to your letter of 28 February and our
subsequent discussions, I am writing to confirm that Jordan
Grand Prix is happy to enter into a contract with Gallaher
Limited for the period January - 31 December 2002 whereby
Gallaher will be the principal secondary sponsor in
consideration of a sponsorship fee of £10 million.
"I would anticipate that Jordan Grand Prix and Gallaher
will enter into a new contract based on the proposals
discussed by you and I on 13 February.
"If you are in agreement with the above I suggest we
prepare a Heads of Agreement immediately ...."
Did you know that letter was being sent?
A. I do not believe so. I could have. It is not something that
I would normally see.
Q. Then turn the page, would you, to tab 30. Here is Mr. Jenner
on 1st June thanking Mr. Phillips: "In acknowledging this I
agree that we should proceed on the basis that you outline."
Are you saying you were not aware that at that time that
Mr. Phillips was writing to Gallaher proposing to take up the
proposal for secondary sponsorship at 10 million. Are you
saying you did not know that?
A. I hope I have explained that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Jenner had
regular contact with each other and it would not be something
that normally would come cross my desk as my relationship was
always with Mr. Northridge.
Q. But this was for £10 million, secondary sponsorship?
A. I realise that.
Q. And you, as we will see later, Mr. Jordan, around this time
were looking intensely to obtain title sponsorship to meet
your budget for 2002. Are you saying you did not know that
that had been written?
A. I cannot recall this letter. I do not remember seeing this
Q. Can you think of any reason why Mr. Phillips did not say to
Gallaher, "Well, you can have full title sponsorship for just
another 7 million"? Can you think of any reason why he did
not say that?
A. I cannot make comment to this letter.
Q. Did you say to Mr. Northridge, then, "Look, why don't you
have full title sponsorship for another 7 million?"
A. I believe at this time that I had told Mr. Northridge, in
confidence, at the Imola Grand Prix, that we would not be
anal to continue with him.
Q. 30th May, did you tell Mr. Phillips that you had had that
conversation with Mr. Northridge?
Q. You did? There is no suggestion of this in this letter, is
there? It is a letter which follows up the 28th February and
gets a very short and agreeable response from Mr. Jenner,
"Let's go ahead and do the deal at 10 million."
A. The principal parties in this was always myself and
Q. The obvious thing would have been, would it not, if you were
prepared to enter into a title sponsorship of 17 million, and
you say that Mr. Northridge was keen on title sponsorship,
that you or Mr. Phillips would have said "Look, why don't we
do a title sponsorship for 17 million?"
A. Mr. Phillips and Mr. Jenner would have their own little
agreement and suss things out to see what the best way
forward is and of course then when Mr. Phillips would be
abreast fully of where we thought we could go, he would then
tell me. I am sure Mr. Jenner would have said the same thing
to Mr. Northridge.
Q. When we were back, I think it was, on 20th March, you
confided in Mr. Phillips what had been discussed with you and
Mr. Northridge because the letter was to clarify that.
So I cannot understand why you were not confiding in him now.
A. Mr. Phillips writes these letters to Mr. Jenner of his own
will and he is in a position within the company to do that.
Q. You can put E2 away. I am going to ask you about Lucent
Technologies. We need E2. Please forgive me. I see from my
note that it would be a document I need to look at in a
moment, so do not put it entirely away. Their sponsorship
contract expired, did it not, in 2001?
A. At the end of.
Q. Yes. Is that right?
A. I believe so.
Q. Do you want to just look at E2, tab 31? You want to look at
332 for the moment. You signed that contract.
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. That contract, as you rightly point out, expired at the end
of 2001. If you would just look, would you, please, at
page 320. Do you see the fees that were being paid by
Q. For 2001.
Q. Just a little over $1.2 million. Is that right?
Q. You are aware of that figure, are you not?
Q. Mr. Jordan, when these proceedings were started, was not
complaint made about Vodafone souring Jordan's relationship
A. I think we recorded the fact of what Mr. Haines stated about
Q. Shall we just look in bundle A, please, to see the complaint
that you were making then.
Q. A. Go to tab 2, would you?
Q. I was looking at 3.2. Then look at paragraph 22 on page 11.
Tell me when you have read that to yourself. Have you got
A. I would like to read it, thank you. (Pause for reading)
Q. Then you are going to look at 44.3 on page 18. You see what
the document is. You may not be familiar with it. It is the
amended particulars of claim, which have been served on
behalf of your company. The essence of what is there being
stated is that there is blame on Vodafone for souring
Jordan's relationships with Lucent, which made it difficult
for Jordan to be able to negotiate some new sponsorship
agreement in the future. That is what is being said.
Q. I am told that you were not claiming any loss. You do not
claim any loss in respect of that?
A. The situation about Lucent is very clear. Mr. Haines went to
great lengths on the evening of the 22nd to outline that it
would be a great feather in our hat and his hat. As he was
new to the company, there was litigation between Lucent and
Vodafone and if we could get rid of Lucent, it would be of
vital importance to him. I initiated as a result of that
discussions. The chairman of Lucent, Mr. Henry Schagt was on
the main board of Warburgs, our partners. I initiated
discussions as to how we could get ourselves out of that
contract to make sure that we could honour the -- hopeful at
that stage -- from the 6th February meeting that we would be
able to facilitate what Mr. Haines had requested us to do.
Q. We will look at just two or three documents in C3 to see
whether or not what you are saying is correct, Mr. Jordan.
You are going to go to tab 64, which starts at page 585.
Just so we understand it, this is an e-mail from Mr. Phillips
to Mr. Perring immediately following the meeting at the
Heathrow Hilton on 14th February. All right?
Q. The passage I want you to go to is at 586, under heading
"Lucent Technologies." It says "In the event that Jordan and
Vodafone conclude Heads of Agreement or full contract for the
years 2002/2003/2004 Jordan will immediately initiate
discussions with Lucent Technologies with a view to
terminating the contract with Jordan for 2001." Do you see
Q. So that was making it clear, was it not, following the
meeting at Heathrow, that those discussions with Lucent would
be initiated in the event that Jordan and Vodafone conclude
heads of agreement or full contract?
Q. But no heads of agreement were concluded and no full contract
A. Mr. Kieser went to great lengths at the meeting that I had in
my flat on 10th February and again on the 14th to say that it
was a very major personal wish on behalf of Mr. Haines that
this should actually occur and that I would be well advised
to initiate and say to some things. I realised what he(?)
writes here. What actually happened is that Mr. Kieser,
instructed by Mr. Haines made very clear at Silverstone that
Lucent was a big problem -- there was litigation -- and
I would be well advised to do whatever I needed to do.
Q. We have seen what is stated there on 15th February by
Mr. Phillips in the clearest terms, have we not? We have
just looked at that.
Q. Go to tab 77, would you, page 640. You would regard,
Mr. Jordan, both Mark Gallagher and Ian Phillips as very
trusted lieutenants of yours, would you not?
Q. So, therefore, when we come to private e-mails being sent
between Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Phillips about this matter,
there would be no reason why they would not be entirely frank
and open with each other as to what the true position was,
A. I do not know.
Q. We will start if we may at 640, item 2, of the e-mail from
Mr. Gallagher to Mr. Pill Phillips of 27th February. Do you
see that? A few days on.
Q. It was a few days on from the 15th. So we are on 27th
A. Yes, OK.
Q. Looking at item 2, "John Hughes is speaking to Henry
Schagt." Do you have that?
Q. I will read it with you. "Chairman of Lucent, today
regarding the 'exit' strategy for us to get out of the deal.
Eddie Jordan primed John last week (he says he didn't mention
the name of our potential sponsor, but John seems to have
guessed it ...) and I told John today to be careful and not
end the Lucent deal before we confirm that is what we want.
Meantime Eddie called me to say he wants to end the deal,
keep the US$1.25 Million they have paid already, and pull the
branding off after Brazil because he wants to do a deal with
Kim Schmitz. That is not the exit deal he discussed with me
before, and I doubt Lucent will accept paying half the fees
for 3 races and then told to fxxx off ... Can you let me
know what we need to do on this, otherwise we'll be getting a
legal letter from Lucent and Ross will have Meg beating her
up on the phone."
Do you see what is stated there, Mr. Jordan?
Q. The essence of what is stated there, if may say, your ploy
was to pull the rug on Lucent, to pocket the money and to do
a deal with Mr. Schmitz. Was that your ploy?
A. Not at all.
Q. Where do you think Mr. Gallagher got that from?
A. I do not know who Mr. Schmitz is.
Q. It would be a disreputable thing to do, would it not?
A. I do not know the full facts on this issue.
Q. Let us see if we can help on who Mr. Schmitz is. If you go
to page 639, you have Mr. Phillips' reply. Do you see that?
If you want to just read at the bottom who Mr. Schmitz is,
does that jog your memory?
A. (Pause for reading) I have never heard of Mr. Schmitz.
Q. He is saying here you have to be jolly careful with that
person and go over the page, "I've been through it all again
with Eddie Jordan about waiting for the big picture to
develop and not jumping in with both feet for the sake of a
deal. It goes in one ear and straight out the other side..."
Mr. Phillips had discussed at length with you, had he not,
about your plan to pull the rug on Lucent and do a deal with
Mr. Schmitz for the rest of the year, had he not?
A. Not at all.
Q. If you go to tab 78, following this sequence, 641, just look
at what is stated in the second paragraph: "I think Eddie
still wants to can Lucent because of his losses on the
shares." Do you see that?
A. Sorry, where are we?
A. OK, yes.
Q. Were you, Mr. Jordan, intending to dishonour the Lucent
contract, keep the money they had paid, pull the branding off
the car, try and hold on to the money and then do a second
deal with Mr. Schmitz?
A. To my knowledge, I have never heard of Mr. Schmitz. It was
quite inaccurate to talk about Lucent in that way. As I have
explained, Mr. Schagt was the chief executive who was on the
board of our partners, Dominic Shorthouse at Warburgs.
I went to see Mr. John Hughes, who was, I understood, the
only board member outside of the US, who was based England,
and I explained to him what would I need to do to get out of
the Lucent thing. If I recall correctly, the most important
thing for Mr. Hughes was his past. There were also other
significant issues with Lucent. We were at that stage
planning a new building. They had completely restructured
our intercommunications system and we had a very detailed and
confidential system about noise eradication on headphones,
which was currently in place at that time. So there was a
lot of work going on with Lucent which I was very keen, if
possible, not to lose, because the technology input was huge.
Q. I will not ask you to look at the document again, but do you
remember the 12th April report, the one we looked at in C5,
which said that Jordan had kept Gallaher fully abreast of the
position? Do you remember that?
Q. And do you remember you told his Lordship that you had told
Gallaher, I think it was, at Imola on 13th to 15th April that
Vodafone had already agreed to sponsor Jordan?
Q. So would you accept that if you had told Gallaher at Imola on
13th to 15th April that Vodafone had already agreed to
sponsor Jordan, that it would be quite improper at the same
time to have been negotiating a title sponsorship with
A. I do not believe I ever discussed or negotiated a title
sponsorship with Orange.
Q. I will put the question again. You would agree, would you
not, that it would be quite improper at the same time to have
been negotiating a title sponsorship with Orange?
A. If you are discussing a title sponsorship with Orange, it
might be, but in the other sense it is not. It depends on
what the situation is. Responsibility for Jordan Grand Prix
is very simple. I have to, at the end of every year, make
sure that I have a certain budget, not just to keep myself,
my team, my family, their families and everybody else intact.
It is a matter of business practice to do what you can in the
most ethical and proper way you can do to ensure that those
budgets are reached and to make sure that those things are
achieved is a matter of how you go about your business.
Of course we would never wilfully deceive or to be improper
in our business, but it is also vitally important that we
respect and honour the confidentiality of people and we go
about our business in the most proper way.
Q. But it would be unethical, would it not, if you believed you
had got a sponsorship agreement with Vodafone, and were
telling Gallaher, one of your principal sponsors, that you
had such an agreement with Vodafone, at the same time to be
negotiating a title sponsorship with Orange? That would be
unethical, would it not?
A. I do not believe so. Not at all.
Q. That would be ethical in your mind?
A. The situation with Orange is very clear. They approached us,
as indeed did Vodafone. We did not go and chase them or try
and find cold calling. They came to visit us. The Orange
thing is quite a different set of circumstances entirely.
Q. Were you negotiating title sponsorship with Orange at this
A. I do not believe so.
Q. But it would be improper if you were, would it not?
A. I cannot answer that. I do not believe it would be.
Q. It would be improper to have done so so far as Vodafone was
concerned, would it not? There you are saying you have got
an agreement with Vodafone, telling one of your principal
sponsors, Gallaher, telling Honda -- you could not honestly
negotiate a title sponsorship with Orange at that time, could
A. The situation that I discussed with Nigel Northridge on that
day was one where for years and years we had discussed many
issues, including being very up front with each other and
hopefully telling them how you would see things panning out.
I confided in him that day, as the chief executive of our
major title sponsor, that I could not do the title
sponsorship the following year or continue with him.
Similarly, it is quite normal at that particular time we had
sponsorship from O2. I do not know what was going on in the
tel.co. business but suddenly we had Vodafone and Orange come
directly to Jordan, and that is, sadly, not the usual state
of affairs. So it is not improper to make good dialogue to
see what each and every company is doing, what they have got
to offer and it is very fair at the time that we talked to
Orange there was an option on behalf of Arrows, the then team
sponsor, and the option was there, that if they scored a
championship point, they had the exclusivity to go on for
2002. I really do not understand the logic about Orange.
Q. If you had told Gallaher at Imola on 13th-15th April that you
had got an agreement with Vodafone for 2002 sponsorship, it
would be most odd, would it not, that you were telling them
one thing on one day and then you might come and tell them
something quite different on another day, "Actually, we have
got a title sponsorship with Orange"?
A. I think you asked me to be realistic previously and this is
something that there was absolutely no chance that Orange was
in a position to do anything because the likelihood of Arrows
getting one point was very strong and even then the main
reason why Orange came to see Jordan was at the request of an
individual who had just joined Orange and the whole request
was about his brand participation in terms of a music
business, Eddie Jordan's rock band, which at that time was
something that he thought would be advantageous to his
Q. But do we agree that you cannot consistently be telling
Gallaher that Vodafone are going to be your sponsors and at
the same time be negotiating a title sponsorship with Orange?
You cannot be doing that consistently, let us be realistic,
A. I am saying to you if that was the case, then of course it
would be realistic, to make sure that you know what is going
on. Absolutely. It is the most important thing in our
business, which is a very competitive business, so few teams
and huge disparity between the top level and the bottom level
that you have to make sure you know what every sponsor is
doing. It is part of the business.
Q. If you were telling Gallaher that you had got a contract with
Q. --- and if you were negotiating at the same time title
sponsorship with Orange, you were being untruthful, were you
not, to one or the other?
A. Not at all.
Q. I would suggest that you must be being untruthful, are you
not, to one or the other?
A. These people came to us, I have to make clear. They came to
us, as indeed did Vodafone. The running came on their side
on both occasions. In a situation like that, it is important
to know what the other side is doing and I think if I had
given up talking to Orange at that stage, I think I would
have given the game away with regard to what I had agreed
with David Haines, and that was equally as important.
Q. So you were pursuing these negotiations, are you saying, with
Orange so that you did not give the game away?
A. I did not pursue negotiations. I was being talked to and
Q. I would suggest to you, Mr. Jordan, when we look at the
documents in more detail later, that the only way you could
have been acting honourably would have been if you did not
tell Gallaher anything of the sort, you had not told Gallaher
that you had a contract with Vodafone and you were
negotiating with Orange because you knew you had not got an
agreement with Vodafone. That is the only way that his
Lordship can find you had been acting honourably at this
time. Do you follow me?
A. I disagree with that.
Q. Whether it was 4th or 5th April -- we ought to just look in
bundle B -- we are going to look at Mr. Kieser's witness
statement. You heard him give evidence this morning.
We will look in his witness statement, if we may, bundle B,
tab 8, page 132. Just look yourself at 95. You have
probably read the before. The question I am going to ask you
is did you have a telephone conversation? Did you ring
Mr. Kieser either on 4th or 5th April to tell him that you
had heard that Vodafone had decided that Ferrari was to be
their first choice and Jordan their second choice?
A. I cannot recall.
Q. Did you learn on or shortly after 4th or 5th April from
someone that that had been decided in Vodafone?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Are you sure?
A. I am quite certain.
Q. If you had learnt that, then what is stated in that
12th April note of Mr. Phillips', which we have looked at
rather extensively, do you remember, about the options being
narrowed to Ferrari and Jordan -- do you remember the note?
A. The note to whom?
Q. Do you remember the internal note we have been looking at to
A. Yes. The strategic planning, yes.
Q. And do you remember it is stated in that note at 1161, at D,
that Vodafone's options had narrowed to Ferrari and Jordan?
Do you remember that?
A. I remember the note.
Q. Because if you had had this conversation and if you had
learned what had been decided, that note would be accurate,
would it not?
A. If I had seen and spoken to Kieser and remembered that, then
it would be accurate.
Q. Where else do you think Mr. Phillips would have got it from
other than from you, that the position had narrowed to
Ferrari and Jordan?
A. I have no recollection how he would do that. There was a lot
of speculation of course.
Q. A lot of speculation?
A. A lot of speculation, yes.
Q. By whom?
A. I do not know.
Q. Were you speculating?
A. There was speculation in a number of different areas, that
everyone seemed to claim that they were going to get Vodafone
Q. We are talking about the period between 4th April or the 5th
April and 12th April, are we not? That is the period we are
talking about. Do you understand?
A. I understand clearly.
Q. There was a lot of speculation going on then, was there?
A. There was speculation at Brazil about Ferrari, which is that
kind of situation, and of course there was just general
speculation as the rumourmonger goes around Formula 1, of
Q. Were you speculating?
A. Not at all.
Q. Was Mr. Phillips speculating?
A. I cannot answer for Mr. Phillips.
Q. So you do not have an answer as to how Mr. Phillips was
recording in that note on 12th April what the options had
A. I had no input into that document and I do not recall seeing
Q. I am going to move on to a different topic, and that is
Honda. When you met with Mr. Haines and others at
Silverstone on 6th February, you were emphasizing the
benefits, were you not, of the Honda association?
Q. Shall we just look at the document in C2, which is the
presentation that was made, I think, by Mr. Phillips on that
day. We are going to look at C2 at 38. Tell me when you are
at that tab.
Q. Would you just identify that document as being the
presentation that was made to Vodafone at Silverstone on 6th
Q. Can we just turn to page 469 in the text, please, under the
heading: "Realising a dream". Do you have that?
Q. "Honda: just 50 years old yet everywhere that cars or
motorcycles are sold they spell out quality, reliability,
performance and innovation. In a move which has sent
shudders through the F1 establishment Honda have locked into
a five year programmer with Jordan with just one objective
WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. Honda is already the most successful
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Then go over to 470 and look about halfway down. Do you see
that sentence: "Honda's involvement will mean a direct entry
into Honda's worldwide dealer network." Do you see that?
Q. This was being sold, was it not, this five year deal, as a
very big plus factor in enticing Vodafone to sponsor Jordan?
A. Certainly part of the programme, yes.
Q. So you would have seen, would you not, that subject to
Vodafone carrying out a proper investigation in due course,
this was being put forward and you would hope accepted by
them as a major selling feature, in response to Jordan?
A. It was part of the presentation.
Q. And that with Honda's five year backing, Jordan were going to
compete successfully, it was hoped, at the very top.
A. That is what it says.
Q. And that is what you were intending to say.
A. That is what we did say.
Q. You knew, did you not, that success was regarded by a company
of Vodafone's stature as extremely important for them if
they were going to decide to sponsor a particular Formula 1
A. I do not believe that that is actually the case.
Q. The security of the Honda contract, and do you understand
what I mean by security, the five year security of the Honda
contract, was always in fact being sold, was it not, as a
major feature of your presentation?
A. No, it was not. For me, it was part of the realising a
Q. So to ensure that that dream was fully taken into account and
absorbed by Vodafone, one might look in C4 to see whether you
were successful in that. We might look at one document at
C4, tab 6. There are a number of them, but this is a
presentation, or the working of a presentation, that was to
be made internally at Vodafone of the various options that
would be available. Do you understand?
Q. We might just look at one page in that if we could. It is a
document which has pros and cons on it. You are probably
familiar with that. Go to 856, would you.
Q. Pros, first item, Honda five years. Do you see that?
Q. You are not saying are you, Mr. Jordan, that Vodafone would
have agreed to sponsor Jordan without having first had the
opportunity to do a proper due diligence and examine the
A. I cannot say how Vodafone would make some decisions; clearly
they could do what they wished to do.
Q. But it would be sensible, would it not, and you would expect
business people of this sort, that Vodafone would want to
examine the Honda contract before committing themselves to
fees of the order of $140 million to $150 million?
A. I do not believe so.
Q. If it was necessary, you would expect, would you not,
Vodafone to have obtained appropriate confirmation from Honda
as to their long-term commitment to Jordan?
A. I think through the negotiations or through any discussions
at a later stage, they are all much later down the road than
any type of making a decision. I do not believe that a
company such like Jordan, which is very clear, is very
different. You have the team principal, who is me, and the
name is over the door. The vast majority of our sponsors for
the last thirty years happen to believe what I say to them,
and they get very well delivered in value terms as a result
of that. They knew fully well that if Honda was to be
changed, as the flexibility, because whether Honda can
deliver ten years can still deliver now, is a matter of
interpretation. Quite clearly, we understood the value of a
major manufacturer and if it was not Honda who was going to
be an equally or may be more important manufacturer, as the
case may be, and I do not want to speculate on that. You
have to understand in the business where there is a lot going
on and a lot changing, of course every sponsor realises that
these things are part and parcel of that agreement.
Q. Do Honda still sponsor Jordan?
A. No, they do not.
Q. Put C 4 away and look at a document in C5. So far we have
seen how significant this five year contract was being
presented. Could we look at a document in C5, 85, please.
We will identify the document at 1185. This is an agenda to
start with and a minute following, I think, of a meeting of
Jordan Grand Prix executive committee on 30th April 2001.
There is an agenda on the first page. Go over to 1186 and
onwards of the minutes. Do you see that?
Q. We might just pick up one comment whilst we are on 1186,
towards the bottom. The title sponsor must be settled before
the new building is given the go ahead. Do you see that?
Q. Do I take it that as at that date, 30th April, the title
sponsorship had not been settled?
A. For 2002?
A. Of course it had been settled from the discussions I had with
Q. What has not being settled here in this minute?
A. There is absolute clarity that when you are told there is
something totally confidential, it is not shared with other
people and there is a very important issue on this.
Q. The other people within the company were being told something
A. I am sorry to labour on this subject but Mr. Haines had a
confidential .... He confided in me and I confided in him.
This with a potential, as indeed any other of the major
people around the place, that there were possibilities that
you do not need to take any risk. This was the biggest deal
we had ever done.
Q. We go to 1188 in the same minute, under the heading "Honda"
towards the bottom: "Eddie Jordan advised he visited Japan
and met with Honda. It's clear that Honda's decisions are
being made, in his opinion it is a crucial time for them - do
they stay with BAR? JGP must do whatever they can to
maintain or improve on the 1 second per lap quicker than
Were you at this stage on 30th April beginning to
wonder whether in fact Honda were going to stay with you
A. No, quite the opposite. The situation is very clear. There
were two teams with Honda, BAR and Jordan. When I negotiated
the deal, that is not what I led to believe. We would be the
exclusive team, therefore I was somewhat disillusioned.
Q. I think the question I put to you was come this time, the
30th April, were you beginning to be concerned that Honda
might not stay with you?
A. I think, I hope I replied. I was not concerned at that time
whether Honda would stay or not.
Q. This five year contract that had been sold as this feature to
persuade Vodafone to enter into discussions with Jordan, we
might just look at the contract in E2 to see what in fact the
legal position was. We are going to find that at tab 32.
We will look, if you are at tab 32, at 365, Mr. Jordan, to
confirm that you had actually signed that contract.
Q. We are going to now look at the contract, which we now of
course have the benefit of seeing, because there has been
disclosure in these proceedings, to see what in fact Jordan's
rights were, whether they had this five year contract or not.
Do you understand?
Q. We are going to look at clause 3 first, if we may. I am
going to ask you to read to yourself, if you would, 3.1 and
3.2. Have you read those?
Q. The effect of that is that Honda can terminate the agreement
for the 2004 and 2005 season, can't it, without any cause at
Q. If Vodafone had decided to sponsor Jordan, it would have
found out that Jordan had only actual rights for two years
and not five.
A. My view is that it remains in force for five years.
Q. Just look at 3.2.
A. I am sorry, I was looking at 3.1.
Q. Read 3.2.
A. 2004 and 5.
Q. The effect of that is that that contract will be terminated
by Honda without cause for 2004.
A. Either side, does it not say and Jordan's side too? Either
side can terminate.
Q. Do not bother about either side. I am talking about Honda
for the moment. They can terminate that agreement without
cause for 2004..
Q. That means that if Vodafone had decided to sponsor Jordan,
they would then have found out that Jordan only had rights
for two years and not five - contractual rights, guaranteed
rights. Is that right?
A. I do not see it that way.
Q. You do not?
Q. I suggest to you that it is quite clear that Honda were not
opting for five years.
A. In good faith, I signed this as a five year agreement. There
were options involved in it and there were options either
Q. Let us look at clause 8.1, may we, page 351. Read that to
Q. In 2003, Honda can charge for the engines.
Q. And it may be that if Honda decide that the payment after
consultation for 2003 is such that Jordan could not afford to
buy them, Jordan only have rights for one year, because they
would not be able to afford to pay what Honda were saying for
2003. If that is so, you get free engines for one year
only - 2002.
A. And 2001?
Q. We are looking at Vodafone's position, you see.
A. I am sorry, but I thought you said we were only entitled to
one year free from Honda.
Q. Let me be clear. I did not mean to confuse you. We are
looking at the position, as it would be from Vodafone,
looking at the contract, and they might have realised from
this that certainly they only had guaranteed rights, Jordan,
for two years, 2002/2003, but in fact it came to 2003.
Jordan could not afford to buy the engines and so it would be
one year only.
A. That is one way of looking at it.
Q. It is rather different from what you were telling Vodafone in
those presentations, is it not?
A. Not at all.
Q. Not at all?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Quite different?
Q. You were telling them in that presentation that Honda were
locked into Jordan for five years.
A. What I said is accurate, and that is that we had an agreement
for five years.
Q. "Locked in". "Locked in" were the words. It is not true, is
A. We had an agreement for five years, absolutely.
Q. They were not locked in for five years, were they?
A. We had an agreement for five years.
Q. Were Honda locked in to Jordan for five years?
A. The potential was there for Jordan to have an agreement with
Honda for five years. In our case, they had a choice to
leave, but so had Jordan, as indeed the case happened that we
have moved to be a partner with Ford.
Q. Were Honda locked in to Jordan for five years?
A. I believe they were.
Q. You do not, do you, Mr. Jordan?
A. I am absolutely sure. When I signed that with Mr. Fukui, who
is now the president of that company .... You do have to
please remember the situation, that I had been with Mugan and
won races with them both in 98 and 99. This were the only
races that Honda had one. There was a very good and strong
loyalty between Honda. The reason we chose to leave Honda
was because of the other team, BAR, and that is only reason
because our chances were better with Ford.
Q. I want to look at one document in C8. Just see if you can
help on this. It is in Mr. Phillips' notebook, the passage
that takes us into this. It is at 1814, 27th March. It
follows a meeting that must have taken place with
Mr. Ecclestone on 26th March, between Vodafone and
Mr. Ecclestone. Just have a look at those last few lines.
If you find it difficult to read it, go back to the previous
page to 1813. I am going to ask you what was that about? Do
A. I have no idea. "Indebted to Honda. Very close to BAR.
Realise you can't trust anyone in this business. The horse's
mouth. Offered to show him the contract."
Q. I shall ask you this. Had you told Vodafone, Mr. Jordan,
that you had got a five year locked-in agreement with Honda
and it was transpiring what you had been telling them was not
A. I am absolutely certain that the five year agreement that I
had signed with Mr. Fukui was in place and there was no need
to tell Vodafone anything different at that time.
Q. When did Honda cease to supply engines to you?
A. We gave them notice in Hungary in 2002. We notified them of
our wish that we were not going to continue with them and
that we were going to move to Ford as a partner of Ford Motor
Q. Was one of the reasons because they were supporting BAR and
perhaps preferring them, you thought?
A. Not really, because we had beaten BAR on the two previous
seasons. I don't believe it was the case. We felt that we
had a better chance with Ford being exclusive with that
Q. Who are you going to be taking engines from next year?
A. Who am I?
Q. Ford, or have you moved on from Ford?
A. That has not been decided. We have a three year agreement
Q. Are you negotiating with Mercedes for next year?
A. I think it is fair to say that Mercedes sent a letter in
January to all of the teams requesting a price level that is
an attractive level for Mercedes, and I have spoken to
Mercedes, like I should and ought to do, as a prudent team
principal would do.
Q. I want to move on to discuss the colour of the Jordan car, if
I may, if Vodafone were to sponsor it - just so you get your
topic clear. We do not need E2. Can we take C2, please. We
are going to look at tab 25, Mr. Jordan, just so you get your
mind clear. We have been looking at what you were telling
Vodafone about your rights to Honda. We have just done that
as a topic. We are now going on to the colour of the car.
We are going to look at C2 at tab 25. This is an e-mail from
Mr. Perring to Mr. Haines, recording, as one sees, just about
a third of the way down, a telephone call he received from
you: "I also received a call from Eddie Jordan this
morning". We are early now, 29th January 2001. Do you see
Q. You called, did you not, Mr. Perring to obtain an
introduction to Vodafone to put your case forward for why
Vodafone should sponsor Jordan?
A. I believe the instruction came from Mr. Marshall, who gave me
the number of Charlie Perring to ring.
Q. One looks about what you were offering, the second item, car
livery in Vodafone colours brand.
Q. So you, I suggest, made it quite clear to Mr. Perring at a
very early stage that one of the features that you could
offer Vodafone is that they could have the car in the livery,
colouring and branding that they wanted.
Q. Move on, would you, just to tab 28. We are going to look at
page 396. We will see from this document, which was prepared
by Mr. Perring, that you had convinced him of that because
one sees the fourth item under "Jordan key points, paint the
Q. So that is how the position stood at that stage. Then
another selling feature, if I may put it, to persuade
Vodafone to sponsor Jordan; they can paint the car red.
A. That is what it says, yes.
Q. That is what you were wanting to convey to Mr. Perring to get
A. Quite probably.
Q. Now we come to the Silverstone meeting on 6th February, where
we are going to see that the presentation is not quite as
promising as that. At that presentation, and we will look
on, if we may, in the same bundle to tab 38, the colouring of
the car was discussed, was it not?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. And amongst the designs that you tabled at that meeting, one
might look at 481 and 482. Are you there?
Q. Black and yellow?
Q. Vodafone were not very happy with that, were they? They were
not, were they, at that time?
A. They had also some documents themselves.
Q. They were not very happy with the car?
A. Understandably so.
Q. No. The upshot of that meeting was, was it not, that
Mr. Phillips or you were saying to Jordan: "If there are any
contractual restrictions with other sponsors, they are
flexible and we can get round them." That is what you were
saying at that meeting, were you not?
Q. Turn to tab 61, would you. We have a Brown report of that
meeting. I am looking at item 5, if I may, with you, if you
are there at page 536. Deutsche Post. Do you see that?
Q. "Contractual commitment to black typeface on yellow
background colour and prominent positioning. Ian Phillips to
confirm flexibility of the contract in respect of Vodafone
spend and positional requirements by 9th February." Look at
the very bottom: "Ian Phillips to forward a summary of all
the very visibility obligations from 2002 by 9th February."
That was a report of a meeting. The impression being given
by you and Mr. Phillips at the meeting is that there may be
some contractual problems but you can get round them. That
is how it was left, was it not?
Q. Then we go to 49, so we see what then happens. They are not
quite as promising as originally presented to Mr. Perring.
We go to 49, and we are now on 8th February. Mr. Phillips is
then sending to Mr. Perring ----
Q. Quite right. Are you there?
Q. Mr. Phillips is sending to Mr. Perring the outline document
for Jordan's commitments for 2002. Do you see that? If you
go over the page, you need for a moment just to look at what
is said about Deutsche Post, branding, in the first six or
Q. There is no suggestion there that that is flexible. There is
nothing said there about being flexible.
A. It is very clear that it says black on yellow.
Q. Yes. What was said at the meeting, just seeing how it
gradually changes, at Silverstone, is, "There may be
contractual restrictions but we can get round it, it's
flexible." Mr. Phillips then goes and looks at the
restrictions, produces a summary, and there is nothing about
it being flexible at this stage.
A. No. I think he is itemizing a set of facts here. This is
what he believes is the situation. I would assume this is
what he is saying. "This is the situation and then the
flexibility comes," or is part of the programme, or whatever.
Q. Then you have a meeting, do you not, with Mr. Kieser and
Mr. Perring in your flat in London on 10th February, a
A. Are we talking about the 6th here?
Q. We are talking about the 6th. We are on the 8th or 9th.
A. I thought you said this was the 8th February.
A. So it is after the 6th.
A. After the 6th, there was a very clear situation. Mr. Haines
held up a document, which was a car, which he said, "You
accept this tonight and I will do a deal with you." It's
quite different. Sorry, maybe I am getting it wrong here.
Q. Yes. We have looked at the document, we have looked at the
contact report saying Mr. Phillips was going to provide the
details on the contractual position by 9th February. Do you
remember seeing that?
A. Correct, which he did.
Q. You see the 8th February being provided. Do you see that?
We have looked at that. There is no suggestion it is
flexible. We are going to go on now.
A. I think what he did say was that it would be flexible. He
was asked to point out the contractual agreements.
Q. Fine. Let us go to 10th February, if we may, because you can
put C2 aside and take C3. That was the meeting, do you
remember, in London?
A. 10th February, yes.
Q. At that meeting, on 10th February, was in your flat or house
Q. You discussed, amongst other things, the livery and colour of
the car again.
Q. We are going to go to tab 55, if we may. Just say if you
identify the document first. It is a letter that Mr. Kieser
sends you. Just look at the first paragraph, effectively
what was discussed at the meeting.
A. " Like to confirm", yes.
Q. Then we can go over to 569. Would you first read to yourself
the first paragraph, the current visual conditions. In fact
I will read them with you, if I may: "The current visual
conditions of brand exposure for the Jordan team sponsorship
was tabled, detailing the agreed livery and team applications
for Deutsche Post" and the other sponsors mentioned there.
Q. "It was confirmed that even though Deutsche Post currently
requires their identity to be applied black on yellow, that a
joint presentation would suffice to obtain their agreement
for application of white reversed out of black or black on
base white. We were comforted to learn that in the event
of Deutsche Post not agreeing, Jordan will pursue the
potential sponsorship with Nestle, with whom you have had
preliminary negotiations." Do you see that?
Q. So the position now had got to, had it not, following the
meeting in your flat, that so far as Deutsche Post, their
position was not acceptable as it was current to Vodafone,
that you told Brown that if one made a joint presentation to
them, they would agree to change their colouring to white and
A. That is what it says.
Q. And that is what happened. That was said at the meeting, was
A. I presume so.
Q. But if they would not agree to that, then you would drop
Deutsche Post and go to Nestle.
A. That is what Mr. Kieser says, yes.
Q. He is recording what happened at the meeting.
A. I accept that, but that is what he says here. I do not
recall talking about Nestle in that open fashion.
Q. Where else would he have got it from?
A. Exactly. It was confidential. It was something that I was
personally working on with the chief executive there, and it
was something that I wanted to keep to myself.
Q. So we have now not to the situation from, "You can paint the
car red," to "There may be restrictions, but they are
flexible and we can get round it, to, "We'll have to make a
joint presentation but we think they will agree, but if they
don't we'll drop them and go to Nestle."
A. I think, to be very clear about this, we were under
instructions., Mr. Haines had openly said to a full meeting
that he quite hated the colour red, that by going with red,
you could never compete against Ferrari, because they were
the distinguished .... He knows very well. He is a high
quality marketeer. He knows the value of the red and white
with Coke. He made it very clear about the value of Ferrari
and the huge attraction that it has. If he went red and
white, it would be a Toyota. Why bother? There were other
areas that he needed to see as a marketeer to put his own
brand values on what he was trying to achieve.
Q. But we are looking at the branding for the moment of
Q. And it is quite clear from this letter that at that meeting
on 10th February the current contractual position with
Deutsche Post was likely not to be acceptable to Vodafone and
you discussed with Brown the possibility of a joint
presentation to Vodafone to get them to change to black on
A. As I say about the Deutsche Post, it was for me a very clear
position. Deutsche Post had been targeted earlier, through
Mr. Schukies, with somebody from Vodafone, which obviously
showed their hand somewhat in terms of their anxiety to have
Deutsche Post part of the overall package. I think it must
be remember in this context, that there are 3 million
customers a day with Deutsche Post and DHL, and DHL is a
brand and new brand livery is something that we have helped
to demonstrate globally. This was not a big issue. This was
a very big plus. This was something that they have not and
could not get anywhere else. The business to business
opportunity, the brand loyalty, the brand association, with
somebody like Deutsche Post and DHL was huge to them. Of
course, Mr. Haines in his capacity as the marketing guru in
this aspect, this was a huge opportunity to him to hang on to
the coat tails of Deutsche Post. He wanted it to happen.
Q. Let us look at what was discussed at the meeting on the 10th
with Mr. Kieser and Mr. Perring. It is quite apparent, is it
not, from this report, at that meeting, that the current
branding colours for Deutsche Post were an obstacle to
Vodafone. That is how it was being presented by Brown to
you, so much so that it was suggested to make a joint
presentation to Deutsche Post to get them to change their
A. I do not accept that.
Q. That is what the document says.
A. The branding in terms of a joint presentation I believe came
from their side. It was something that they (i.e. Vodafone)
had so desperately wanted. They could not get into Germany.
They had had a problem with their brands and the take over,
and Germany was a huge, huge opportunity for them.
Mr. Haines could see that.
Q. "It was confirmed that even though Deutsche Post currently
requires their identity to be applied black on yellow, that a
joint presentation would suffice to obtain their agreement
for application of white reversed out of black, or black on
base white." Was that confirmed at that meeting?
A. I do not believe so.
Q. It was not confirmed?
A. I do not remember.
Q. A moment ago, you thought that that paragraph was a fair
reflection of what happened at the meeting.
A. What I said about a fair assessment, and it is quite clear
and everybody at Vodafone knew, in terms of livery and look
of the car, which changes on a daily basis, even with people
like Benson & Hedges, these things change on a race to race
basis and Mr. Phillips is absolutely responsible for that and
the relationship he has which he builds up with the
particular client or the sponsor. This is something that
wouldn't necessarily be of any interest to me.
Q. In this letter that Mr. Kieser is writing, he goes out of his
way in this paragraph to record this, saying it is of no
A. No. I am saying they are requesting to have a meeting. They
would like, as a wish, to go black on base white.
Q. He goes on to say, "We are comforted to learn that in the
event that Deutsche Post do not agree, you will pursue
sponsorship with Nestle, with whom you had preliminary
negotiations. You must have told him, "If they don't agree,
we will drop them and we'll go to Nestle."
A. No, that is not what it says. I said that if they do not
agree, we will go and talk to them. It was quite obvious
that this was major target for them, a major target.
Q. How do you account for that sentenced, "Pursue potential
sponsorship with Nestle," other than that being to replace
A. I am disappointed to see that there because I think
Mr. Kieser knew full well that the chief executive officer, a
guest of ours at a race, of Nestle, which is a prime target
for any team .... I could only have mentioned the word Nestle
in a confidential fashion.
Q. Let us look at what was said about the colour of the car and
the base colour of the car. That was discussed at the
meeting too, was it not?
A. With Mr. Kieser. Mr. Kieser was well aware that the
branding .... At this stage, Brown were bringing so many
different colorations and so many different schemes that it
was hard the keep up, to be to be truthful.
Q. At this stage, February?
A. We already saw some Brown stuff on the 6th.
Q. Let us see what he is saying and they we will see how you
agree with it. Go to the next paragraph: "We do record your
concern, as expressed at the meeting, that if the new team
design called for a base application other than the current
yellow, Jordan might wish to retain the team Jordan identity
in year one, utilising the Jordan yellow in your logo type.
You did however emphasise that this was not n imperative, but
merely a request." Then it goes on to say what the meeting
discussed. Do you see that?
Q. So there was a discussion, was there not, about what the base
colour of the car would be if Vodafone agreed to sponsor
Jordan, and you realised, did you not, that Vodafone might
want a colour other than yellow and you said that, if
possible, you would like the Jordan car to remain yellow the
A. That would be a wish.
Q. But that happened, did it not?
A. What did happen?
Q. That discussion which is fairly recorded in that paragraph.
A. It was recorded, I presume, in the same context that
Mr. Haines did not wish it to be red if he could avoid it,
and he made it very clear about that. Of course, our team
colour is yellow and we would like to retain it if it was
possible. It is absolutely right that we should mention it
at that stage.
Q. So there was a discussion with Mr. Kieser and Mr. Perring on
10th February about the base colour of the car.
A. I can't deny that.
Q. And you said that you would prefer the Jordan car to remain
yellow for the first year, but it was not essential.
Q. We have moved a little bit away, have we not, from what was
originally proposed to Mr. Perring in January, but shall we
move to 64, to see what then happens. Are you at 64? This
is Mr. Phillips' e-mail of 15th February.
Q. And we are going to look with you, if we may, at the very
bottom of 585, naming rights, and then below that is fees net
to team. Do you have that?
Q. Look over the page, would you: "Contracted fee, 2002, $39
million". Then there is the note: "The 2002 fee is subject
to the car being predominantly black and yellow in respect of
Jordan's existing contractual obligations."
Q. We have now got to the stage, have we not, 15th February,
when rather than it not being imperative, it has become
imperative, has it not, that the car is going to be
predominantly black and yellow for 2002 and, as a result of
that, you have reduced the proposed first year fee to 39
A. The figures had been previously agreed, so I am not sure .....
The amount of it in figures were already previously agreed
some time before that.
Q. I am looking at the 39 million for 2002. Have we now not got
to the stage where it has become imperative that the car
remains predominantly yellow and black for 2002 and the
baseline fee for that year is 39 million?
A. That is what Mr. Phillips is saying.
Q. And that is going to then be made up, if you go over the
page, to 587, by a whole range of performance bonuses.
Q. And that, Mr. Jordan, is how the position was left, was it
not, with Mr. Perring endeavouring to come up with the
designs that would satisfy everyone and Vodafone not agreeing
to pay performance bonuses?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Whilst we are on C3, could you go forward to tab 94, please.
My Lord, I see the time. I think I am reasonably well up to
speed. I think if we come back at 2 ----
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: You will remain up to speed?
MR. ALDOUS: Fingers crossed.
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: 2 o'clock.
(Adjourned for a short time)
MR. ALDOUS: Mr. Jordan, could you have C3 and just look at a
document at tab 94, please. You may have it open.
A. 94, yes.
Q. That is an e-mail from Mr. Perring. Do you see that?
Q. It is to yourself and Mr. Phillips, 14th March. Just
familiarise yourself with it and I am going to ask you did
you receive and see that e-mail at the time?
A. 794, I have is ----
Q. 749. No, do not bother about the very top bit. Do you see
that, 14th March to Jordan?
Q. And you read that and saw it at the time?
A. No, I have never seen this.
Q. Never seen it?
Q. Well, let us just have a look at it for the moment. He is
suggesting, if you look on the first page, about two-thirds
of the way down, that a letter is written by Peter Sutherland
to Sir Christopher Gent. Do you see that?
A. Item 3? Above that?
Q. Mine has got a punch hole through: "David is meeting
Christopher Gent next week". Just read that paragraph and
see if you remember.
A. (Pause for reading) Yes.
Q. And you got Mr. Sutherland to write to Sir Christopher Gent,
did you not?
A. I do not recall seeing this document. I did ask
Mr. Sutherland to make contact. I am not sure I asked him to
Q. Have you read or re-read this e-mail before you came to give
A. This document here?
A. No, not at all.
Q. It would be right, would it not, to say that Mr. Perring
became quite a close confidant of yours, would it not?
A. I do not agree that is true.
Q. There came a stage, did there not, when he was informing you
secretly of what was going on with Vodafone and asking you to
keep it confidential?
A. I do not recall that at all.
Q. Do you remember him telling you that he had been warned by
Mr. Kieser that he was getting too close to you?
A. I do not recall that until this call.
Q. And you do not remember him, therefore, explaining to you why
he was not perhaps going to all the meetings and particular
meetings at Benetton?
A. No, I do not.
Q. If one goes back in the same bundle, C3 at 55, this is a
letter of 12th February which you did receive, the one we
have looked at before, from Mr. Kieser after the meeting you
on the 10th.
Q. Just look at the second paragraph which starts, "We await
your written confirmation". Just read that to yourself. You
knew, Mr. Jordan, did you not, even by then, that whatever
the date was going to be there would need to be a board
meeting of Vodafone to approve any sponsorship deal and
documents would need to be signed. You knew that, did you
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. If you go back to the document we have looked at before, C3,
at 64, at 586, the document that you remember we have looked
at a moment ago, 15th February, the one with the 39 million
on the top of the page - do you remember looking at that?
A. I will just remind myself, 15th February.
Q. We have looked at this passage about Lucent Technologies,
referring to an event that Jordan and Vodafone conclude heads
of agreement or full contract. You knew, Mr. Jordan, did you
not, that before Vodafone would agree to sponsor Jordan,
there would need to be a signed document, did you not?
A. Not at all.
Q. We know that Mr. Perring was at the meeting with Mr. Haines
on 21st February. You were not there, but it was the meeting
with Mr. Haines after he had been to meet Sir Christopher
Gent on 21st February. If you look at tab 75, which is a
document you will not have seen, this is a report prepared by
Mr. Perring. It says so. Do you see that at page 636?
Q. It is a report that he prepared after the meeting he had had
with Mr. Haines and others on 21st February. Just read to
yourself, would you, the second paragraph: "DH advised that
the following his meeting with Chris Gent". Just read that
paragraph, would you. Do you see in that report it is being
explained by Mr. Haines to Mr. Perring that there is going to
be a period of review and additional assessment by Vodafone
with a final decision being made mid-April.
A. That is what it says, yes.
Q. Do you see that?
Q. Look, if you would, on the next page. At 637 you see set out
in a series of numbered paragraphs the progressive steps
within Vodafone for reaching its final decision.
Q. Did not Mr. Perring explain to you, Mr. Jordan, what the
internal procedure was within Vodafone and what the timing
A. Not at all.
Q. Go to tab 82, would you. On 7th March Mr. Perring came to
Jordan's offices, did he not, for a debriefing?
A. It appears so.
Q. You spoke to him that day, did you not?
A. I have no recollection of that.
Q. Keep that open and look, if you would, in bundle B, tab 2,
which is Mr. Phillips' witness statement. Go, if you would,
to page 30 at paragraph 91. Do you not remember Mr. Phillips
coming to your offices on Thursday, the 8th, and speaking to
you and Mr. Gallagher?
A. I cannot be certain that Mr. Perring came, but it seems
likely here; but I cannot remember.
Q. Are you sure that Mr. Perring did not tell you, Mr. Jordan,
what Mr. Haines had explained to him about the whole process
and timing for a decision within Vodafone?
A. Quite certain.
Q. Could we look at tab 51, please.
A. Of C3?
Q. Of C3. Can you identify the writing?
A. Yes - me.
Q. It is your writing. Now, we can tell from that document,
Mr. Jordan, by looking at the bottom, when it was downloaded
or printed off. Do you see that?
A. 29th March.
Q. Yes. Can you help us as to why you were paying a particular
interest on who were the directors of Vodafone?
A. No. I think it's quite customary for somebody like me to
make sure that I know if there are any cross-references there
with people that I would either know or know people of other
Q. But I am looking in particular at the timing of it.
Q. No? Do you not think it was because you knew there was to be
a board meeting and wanted to know who the directors of
A. I really do not think so.
Q. Or have you got any explanation as to why that list was
downloaded on 29th March with your writing on it?
A. I notice I put a thing, Jurgen Schrempp, which I would know,
clearly. I have no real idea why I would ask for this, other
than the fact to familiarise myself with, who were the main
decision makers in terms of the board of Vodafone.
Q. Would you put C3 away and would you go to 4A. Go to page
971, please. Looking at the section "Revenue statement", do
you note the date of a Vodafone board meeting on Wednesday,
4th April? Do you see that date?
Q. Where did that come from?
A. I cannot be sure.
Q. Can we move to 22nd March, just to get your mind clear.
Q. That, by then, had been over a week since Mr. Perring's
e-mail of the 15th-14th, which you say you did not read, the
one I showed you, referring to Mr. Sutherland. Do you
remember the e-mail I showed you? I do not know whether you
notice from that e-mail that he was telling you and
Mr. Phillips that Benetton were making quite an impression
with Vodafone. Do you remember him telling you that?
A. As on what date, did you say?
Q. Do you want to go back to it? It is 14th March. Do you want
to go back to it again? It is C3 at 94.
Q. Just look at the first bit if you like: "As you have
Q. "There is a bit of indecision creeping in and we need to
contain or manage it. Essentially David and Peter came away
from the meeting yesterday, thinking they had the edge.
Their conclusions, I gather, were based on the following."
Do you see that?
Q. "Flav is talking the talk. They are buying it. Do not have
enough experience to rely on my word as gospel. I will also
be careful about how much I character assassinate him in case
they think I have been bought." Are you sure you did not see
that e-mail at the time?
A. I did not see that e-mail.
Q. Not only is of course it sent to you, Mr. Jordan, but it is
recording what you had already gathered - "as you have
A. I was aware that there had to be something going on between
Vodafone and Benetton, absolutely.
Q. Why were you aware of that?
A. Because Flavio, in Australia, asked me would I care to swap.
Q. Now, of course, by 22nd March, it had been over a week since
Mr. Perring's e-mail. Were you not, by 22nd March, becoming
increasingly concerned to find out what was going on at
A. I have to say that 22nd March, when you are in the middle of
getting a team on the road and being in Australia, then
Malaysia, then you are going to Brazil, you do not really
have a lot of time when I am trying to run the company, so I
am entrusting Mr. Phillips on these type of issues to look
after them, for something that is going to happen the
following year. Nevertheless, it is vitally important
because it is a very big deal, of course.
Q. So money was a big, big factor to be able to keep the show on
the road for 2002, was it not?
A. It's always a big issue.
Q. Were you not, by 22nd March, becoming increasingly concerned
to find out what was going on at Vodafone?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Weren't you and Mr. Phillips in fairly regular contact with
Mr. Perring during this time?
A. I was not in constant touch with Mr. Perring at all.
Q. We have heard from Mr. Phillips giving evidence about his own
notebook. Did you record that telephone conversation on 22nd
March with Mr. Haines?
A. Very clearly.
A. Record? No, we did not.
Q. You see, so far as you were involved, as I see it on the
documents, you signed off, did you not, the letter of the
23rd, the letter that went to Mr. Harris.
A. Correct. I was instructed to do so.
Q. Let us look at that letter, may we, and you will find that in
C4A. It should be tab 30 or 31, whichever you like; they are
both signed copies. I have it open at 30, if that would be
convenient to you.
A. I am sorry?
Q. I have it open at 951, if that is convenient to you.
A. I am fine, thank you.
Q. And no doubt you looked at that letter carefully before you
approved and signed it.
A. It's electronically signed, but I know its content.
Q. You knew its contents, did you not, before it went out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would I be right in saying, therefore, that you had approved
its contents before it went out?
Q. By that, I meant you had read it carefully before it went
A. I read it.
Q. The first sentence is: "As you know, I spoke to David
yesterday evening and he confided in me of his decision."
Why did you not state in the letter to Mr. Harris that
Vodafone had agreed to grant Jordan a sponsorship contract?
A. Because exactly what I am saying there, that I confided and
he confided in me the decision. It was a very confidential
matter as far as Mr. Haines was concerned. He told me
absolutely, just to make sure, that I sent the letter, this
letter, to Peter Harris. He was coming on board on 1st
April, or something like that, and I should get this letter
off to him.
Q. I think Mr. Harris had been involved for a little time before
A. But we were not sure. I was advised, I believe, even though
this letter is to Mannesman .... I always believed he was in
Atlanta with Coca-Cola at the time.
Q. So there was no question of wanting to keep it confidential
from any secretary or anyone else within Jordan that it was
sent in this form?
A. Of course it would be. Confidentiality is confidentiality,
and I was very fussy about things like that.
Q. If you were proposing in this letter signing heads of
agreement within a matter of days, what was it you were
wanting to keep quiet?
A. The whole nature of confidentiality, I have to stress in our
business, is the utmost importance. The credibility of the
team and the position of the team is based upon whether
people can keep secrets or not, whether they are technical or
Q. But were you envisaging that it would be kept confidential
from Mr. Harris if there were heads of agreement signed?
A. The heads of agreement was something that was a previous
discussion with somebody. It is not normal for Jordan to do
heads of agreement, as it happens.
Q. But you are suggesting here ----
A. If you prefer heads of agreement.
Q. So if heads or agreement were signed ----
A. If they asked for them.
Q. Were you seeing that that would be kept confidential from
A. Mr. Haines made it very clear that the prime time for the
launch of this programme was Monaco, and that was quite a
long time to keep a secret of this nature. I was making sure
that we did not fall down on that aspect.
Q. But the letter in the fourth paragraph is proposing signing a
contract or heads of agreement early next week.
A. My clear reading of that is "if you prefer". We were making
an offer if they wanted to. If Vodafone wanted to make a
heads of agreement, then we could do it.
Q. So you were happy to do that?
A. We are offering it to them. "If you would prefer, we could
offer you heads of agreement next week."
Q. Did you do anything to speed up getting a heads of agreement
drafted and signed, or a full contract?
A. I do not believe the next opportune time was for them to come
back to us.
Q. They did not, so did you do anything to speed up getting a
draft contract taken through to conclusion or heads of
A. They already had a draft contract, and it is not in our
experience to push or cajole people into doing something like
that if they do it in their own time.
Q. Did you do anything on your side to speed up the conclusion
of a draft contract?
A. I can only tell you that we sent them a contract. They had
had that. If they wished to have a heads of agreement, we
were saying, "We welcome you to do so."
Q. Did you, on your side, do anything to speed up either the
signing of a heads of agreement or the conclusion of a draft
A. Specifically, I do not remember.
Q. You do not remember?
A. It's not something that, you know, you have just landed the
biggest deal of your entire life. This is a huge, huge day
for Jordan. You cannot imagine how vital this is and where
it is going to put us in the stakes for the future. You do
not get into a situation. I trusted David Haines, and he was
very clear and very fair with me. When I say I give him your
confidential and the confidentiality is so vital, I gave him
that and I still stand by that.
Q. So why did you not want to ensure that there was a draft
contract taken through to conclusion?
A. They had a draft contract, and they are being offered a heads
of agreement. I am not sure what more you have to do.
Q. Did you do anything subsequently to enquire why the draft
contract had not been taken further forward?
A. There were a number of discussions right after this, with
Mr. Haines in particular, which gave me total comfort.
Q. I will ask the question again. Did you do anything
A. I spoke to Mr. Haines at a later stage, which gave me the
comfort that I was well in good hands at this stage.
Q. Did you do anything subsequently to progress the drafting or
the settlement or finalising of the contract?
A. I am not sure how I can answer that question, because it is
quite clear that I have given you the best answer that I can
Q. I would like a yes or no first. Did you do anything
subsequently to progress the finalising of the contract?
A. I did everything in our power to make sure that they had at
their availability whatever they wanted to do with the
contract that they received and the offer of a heads of
Q. Did you do anything subsequently to progress the finalisation
of any contract?
A. I spoke to Mr. Haines.
Q. What did you do in speaking to Mr. Haines to progress the
finalisation of a contract?
A. He instructed me that it was a confidential matter and that
everything was in good hands. "Trust me, there is nobody
else who can deliver, do not worry." I was comfortable with
what Mr. Haines was entrusting me with.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was on, in particular, the date of the 27th.
Q. Did you do anything after the 27th to progress the
finalisation of the contract?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you do anything after the 27th even to progress the
preparation of a heads of agreement?
A. The heads of agreement was not down to me. That was
Mr. Phillips and whoever else was handling it, but I do not
Q. "No" is the answer to that, then? To your knowledge,
nothing was done?
A. To my knowledge, nothing was done.
Q. On 26th March you received, or on 27th March, a reply from
Mr. Harris dated the 26th, which you will find at tab 33.
Did you receive that letter and read it?
A. Did I receive it?
Q. And you read it?
Q. And when you read the letter, before you spoke to anybody,
what did it tell you, on the face of the letter?
A. Well, I read exactly what is here, I presume. Do you want me
to read it?
Q. No. Would you like to summarise it because you understood
A. Yes, I remember the letter from Mr. Harris.
Q. Would you like to summarise it, then?
A. Well, he was saying that it needs approval and it needs a
follow-up with Mark and Neil, and it also is that we are
committed to making a decision in the very near future.
Q. When you received that letter, you say you spoke to
Q. And you say that Mr. Haines told you, in effect, that he was
the boss and everything would be sorted out?
A. He told me this was for the file.
Q. Which was for the file?
A. This was for the file. He told me he was the boss, which he
had reiterated in my office on the night of 6th February, and
at this stage he was saying that no one else can deliver,
even though he did not need to say that. "The deal stands on
what I said to you on the 22nd."
Q. I did not quite understand the conversation about no one else
can deliver. What was he saying to you?
A. He was saying to us, "Just calm down, because at this stage
of course, there were rumours. He made this point.
Q. What point?
A. He made the point that we had the deal. We had agreed a
Q. No. That is not what you were telling me about a moment ago.
You were telling me about him saying something about no one
else can deliver. That is what you were going to explain.
A. We went into a number of these because I obviously pushed him
on various things. He said, "I have made a decision. You
have the deal."
Q. We are back on the part of the conversation about him saying
that no one else can deliver. You were just about to tell
his Lordship how that part of the conversation went.
A. No. That part of the conversation was just a peripheral part
of the conversation, because it had very little to do with
Q. Peripheral or not, it might just tell his Lordship what you
were saying that part of the conversation was about.
A. The conversation went along the lines that I was irritated,
as you can well imagine, receiving this, in the total belief
that I had a fixed contract deal, and there are a number of
things that you can well imagine at various different races.
I raised things and he told me, "Have confidence, I am the
boss, I have given you the deal.
Q. No, no, we are not, Mr. Jordan, talking about that part of
the conversation at the moment. The part of the conversation
I would like you just to expand on and tell his Lordship
about was the conversation where you say that Mr. Haines said
that no one else can deliver. Do you understand? You
mentioned that two or three times. Would you just expand on
that part of the conversation, please.
A. I make the point that of course I was concerned as to
receiving this letter. This was a big surprise. What I made
clear to him is, "Look, please tell me what is the situation.
I need absolute clarity here. I must know what is
happening." In that discussion, I can only assume that
there were certain things that in the reply he made it very
clear about the deal being done on the 22nd. He makes it
very clear the reasons why and various other aspects that he
has chosen Jordan on that aspect. If in that conversation he
said that no one else can deliver, I am not sure exactly what
he did mean or did not mean. It was very clear on what the
Q. If he was the boss and everything was sorted out or would be
sorted out, I do not understand why he was agreeing for
Mr. Harris to write this letter. Can you just explain your
understanding of that?
A. I am of the opinion that the way it happened, he needed
something for his file. I cannot answer why he would need
something for his file.
Q. But you must have an idea from the conversation you say you
had with Mr. Haines why this letter was written.
A. I can believe that Mr. Haines wanted this kind of letter on
his file. I cannot speculate, honestly.
Q. You had, you say, this conversation with Mr. Haines as a
result of receiving this letter. As a result of receiving
this letter, you spoke to Mr. Haines.
A. Mr. Harris.
Q. Mr. Haines.
A. I spoke to Mr. Haines.
Q. That is right, to Mr. Haines. Having read this letter, you
spoke to Mr. Haines.
Q. And didn't Mr. Haines tell you why the letter was written?
A. He told me that this letter was needed for his file. His
decision was his decision. He was the boss. He was
empowered with this decision. His decision had been made to
us on the 22nd. He was very clear about that and he
emphasised it several times. He was concerned with me why I
was pushing, but this was a shock, this letter.
Q. It was a shock?
A. Yes, I think so; it was a shock.
Q. "Needed" for his file. What did you understand from that,
A. Well, without going into a story, I have to tell you that it
was very clear. Mr. Haines had clearly looked at what he was
doing up to the 22nd. It was clear that the mandate that
they had given us on 6th February was no tobacco, team title,
coloration, and all of the bits and pieces that were put
together, which were vitally important. At that time there
was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Jordan were the key
people. He rang and gave a commitment to me on the 22nd,
and this probably, as far as he was concerned, could have
had, for all intents and purposes, probably some pressure
inside from different national markets and he wanted this for
Q. I do not understand, because you are a reasonably astute
person, Mr. Jordan. He is saying, if he did say it, he wants
it for his file. What purpose did you think he wanted it for
A. I cannot speculate.
Q. Oh, you can.
A. I can't. I can imagine what he would want it on his file
for. The decision was his but he wanted it there because he
was not ready in any way to declare what his decision was.
Q. But if it is on a file, it is on a file for posterity, for
A. I cannot speculate that.
Q. But you said you could imagine it.
A. No. I am not prepared to imagine it.
Q. You are not prepared?
Q. Why not?
A. Because I cannot speculate. Maybe you should ask Mr. Haines
that question. I can only tell you what he said to me.
Q. But you do have a fair idea, do you not, in your own mind, as
to what the letter was for?
A. I think I would be very unwise to speculate at this stage.
Q. You would be unwise?
A. I would, really.
Q. May I invite you to be unwise?
A. I do not think so. I think it is unfair.
A. Because I cannot speculate on something.
Q. But you had this conversation ----
A. No. I can only deal with the facts. The facts are that I
received that. It was a surprise. The first thing I did was
ring Mr. Haines and say, "What's this?" He said, "Do not
worry, do not worry, do not worry, I have already explained
Q. You see, if it is a document that is needed for the file,
would you yourself write back and say, "I agree or I
understand the letter"? Would you do that?
A. That is the very reason I did not reply.
Q. You must have spoken to Mr. Phillips, then, about this
conversation, did you?
A. I would probably expect so.
Q. If we turn to tab 37 and look at the first sentence, do you
Q. It is a pretty unwise thing for Mr. Phillips to be writing,
is it not, if it is for the file?
A. No, not exactly, if he knew (which I presume he did) the
subject of the conversation between Mr. Haines and I. This
Q. I thought you ----
Q. I thought you said a moment ago that you would have not
A. I did not write back. I was clear.
Q. But it would have been rather unwise for Mr. Phillips to have
done. You would not have done.
A. I cannot answer that. Mr. Phillips wrote this letter.
Q. You spoke to Mr. Phillips, you say, about the telephone
A. Which telephone conversation?
Q. The one with Mr. Haines.
A. He was there.
Q. He was there. What we do know with Mr. Phillips is that he
had a conversation with Mr. Harris. We know that because he
has got that in his note, and we might just look at that.
Take bundle C8. Go, please, to 1814. Do you see what
Mr. Phillips has written as to what he understood from
speaking to Mr. Harris? "A lot of people internally who have
to be convinced. Jordan has a lot of support. Looks good
for you." Do you see that?
Q. Did Mr. Phillips tell you what he had heard from Mr. Harris?
A. I do not recall.
Q. You do not recall that? Looking at what he has written
there, a lot of people internally would have to be convinced.
That indicates, does it not, that there has yet been no
A. No, not at all. It does not mean that to me.
Q. What does it mean to you?
A. It does not mean what you asked me.
Q. What does it mean to you?
A. I do not want to speculate.
Q. But you were much closer to the events, do you see, than I
A. I can only trust what I spoke to Mr. Haines, and can I only
go about what I personally did with him and the dialogue that
Q. But you were speaking to Mr. Phillips, you say, about your
conversation with Mr. Haines which you say Mr. Phillips
Q. You say he heard that.
Q. I am not sure whether it is in his notebook, but he also
spoke to Mr. Harris. Did he not tell you what Mr. Harris
A. I do not recall.
Q. It seems very odd to have a one-sided conversation, does it
A. Right at this time, we are heading for Brazil, and I had been
suitably impressed with the way that Mr. Haines had talked to
me about the explanation about the letter. If I was
perturbed, I would have written the letter. I was totally
comfortable about what had happened.
Q. You see, we might need to keep bundle C8 to one side. If we
go back to the C4A bundle and go to tab 36, if you look at
page 973, these are notes made by Jane Graves. These are
notes made in relation to an executive meeting of Jordan on
28th March, one day later.
A. (No verbal response).
Q. If you look at the note there at page 973, what is being
recorded by her is that it is not necessarily going to be
rubber stamped by the board. Do you see that - "not rubber
stamp by board"?
Q. Do you see that?
A. "Jordan are the ones, not rubber stamped by board." Yes.
Q. Now that, of course, is in accordance with the note that
Mr. Phillips had made of his conversation with Mr. Harris,
that a lot of people internally need to be convinced. Do you
A. That this is a result of Mr. Phillips?
Q. No. I am saying it is in accordance with, is it not?
A. Roughly speaking.
Q. Do you have an explanation as to why Miss Graves would have
been writing this on the 28th?
A. Miss Graves had just joined us. Jane Graves had just joined
us with this gentleman from McKinzies who had been appointed
as a consultant but we later took on, and I can only assume I
did not know she was taking minutes. She obviously must
have. I am not sure this is accurate, nevertheless.
Q. Now, if you had had that conversation which you say you had
with Mr. Haines, you would have thought that this was just a
formality. If there needed to be any consideration by the
board or what have you, it was just going to be a formality.
Q. No? Not a formality?
A. From Mr. Haines? Mr. Haines had assured me from day one,
including everybody else, that it was always his call. It
was his decision. I had heard it from the decision-maker.
To me, the decision-maker, I accepted his offer and it was
Q. Right, but we have now got to the letter of 26th March which
talks about there being a board meeting, does it not? Do you
want to look at the letter again?
A. Yes, which I called Mr. Haines, as a result.
Q. Do you want to look at the letter again?
A. No. I remember the letter.
Q. Did you think, therefore, that there was going to be a board
meeting or was not?
A. I had no real understanding one way or another. I probably
felt that there would be a board meeting but the decision had
already been taken by the decision maker.
Q. So if there was to be a board meeting, it was just a
A. If there was to be any meeting of any consequence, the
decision had already been made by the person that we were
absolutely clear about was the decision maker.
Q. So if there was to be a board meeting, it would merely be
Mr. Haines reporting the decision that had already been made.
A. We were already clear in the knowledge that he was the
decision-maker, and I cannot speculate what goes on inside
Q. But you knew from the letter that there was to be a board
A. Well, if that is what it states, yes.
Q. Shall we have a look at it. It is in C4A at 33, the second
paragraph. Read it to yourself. "Until our board approves
such a decision we can not fully commit".
A. That is exactly what it says, yes.
Q. You knew there was going to be a board meeting.
A. A board meeting.
Q. You knew there would be a board meeting.
A. I knew there would be a board meeting.
Q. But you are saying that having spoken to Mr. Haines ----
Q. ---- you thought it was merely Mr. Haines simply reporting to
the board that the decision had been taken by him.
A. Absolutely. It was his decision.
Q. And nothing for the board to resolve at all.
A. He had already got that approval.
Q. That is, you say, as you understood it, from the conversation
you say you had with Mr. Haines.
A. I always believed that Mr. Haines was the decision-maker and
I always believed that it was his call, his decision, and
that it was one decision maker to another on that day.
Q. You were in your offices when you spoke to Mr. Haines, and
you say Mr. Phillips was there as well.
A. No, I did not say that.
Q. I am so sorry.
A. I was not asked that question.
Q. I will ask you the question.
Q. Where were you when you spoke to Mr. Haines?
A. I was in Mr. Phillips' office.
Q. What date was this?
A. On the date of the 22nd.
Q. I am so sorry. I mean the conversation with Mr. Haines after
the letter of 26th April. It is my fault.
A. I am getting confused.
Q. Collect your thoughts again. You received the letter of 26th
April from Mr. Harris.
Q. You then speak to Mr. Haines?
Q. And did Mr. Phillips hear you speaking to Mr. Haines?
A. I do not believe so. I am not sure.
Q. And where were you when you spoke to him?
A. I cannot be certain - probably in my office.
Q. But you think you reported then to Mr. Phillips about that
A. I believe I must have.
Q. With that evidence, that the board meeting, if there was to
be one, was merely going to be Mr. Haines reporting to the
board the decision he had already taken in effect as a noting
matter and nothing more, can we look at bundle C5, please. I
want to look at three documents with you, if I may, in C5,
starting with tab 55. We will just look at the three
documents first, if we may, so we can fully understand them.
I will ask you a question or two about them. The first
document is an e-mail, do you see that, from Mr. Gallagher,
to Ros Ryder of 3rd April, at 11.37.
Q. And he says: "Ros, can you have a look at this. It is what
I drafted and agreed with Eddie Jordan. I am planning to
send it to Susan by 1 p.m. today requesting her to redraft it
and e-mail it to David Haines at Vodafone today. He meets
their chairman Chris Gent tomorrow morning to approve the way
forward in Formula 1."
Over the page is the draft of the letter which had been
prepared. The draft says: "Dear David, I understand from
Eddie Jordan that there is a possibility of Vodafone working
with Jordan in Formula One. We would welcome the opportunity
to work with you as it is clear there could be great
synergies". We will leave the rest of that paragraph.
"MasterCard has been a partner of Jordan since 1997." He
explains that position. He concludes with: "We have no
hesitation in recommending you to Jordan as this would
provide huge added value to all concerned. Best regards."
So that is the draft of a letter that Susan Stashower is
being asked to send to David Haines.
Q. And then go over the page to tab 56, please, where we have
got Mark Gallagher sending to Dawn Simpson, again on 3rd
April: "Can you forward the attached note to Susan Stashower
at MasterCard for me? Please let her know that this is the
draft I produced at the weekend to show Eddie what I thought
MasterCard could include in a letter to Vodafone. It is up
to her whether she uses all, some or none of the points
included. Can you give Susan David Haines' name, title,
postal address. Please ask her to ensure that the letter is
e-mailed or faxed to David today as he is meeting Vodafone's
chairman Chris Gent tomorrow morning to consider decision."
Do you see that?
Q. And if we then go to tab 57, it is the e-mail to Susan
Stashower from Dawn Simpson saying that Mark had asked her,
that is Dawn Simpson, to forward it on to Susan Stashower and
stressing that it has to be e-mailed or faxed to David Haines
today as he is meeting with Chris Gent tomorrow morning.
Then if you go on to 59, that is the letter duly sent by her.
Q. If you understand that, it was simply a report to Mr. Haines
and the decision had already been taken. Why did you over
the weekend work with Mr. Gallagher on a draft letter that
was to be sent by MasterCard to be shown, in effect, to Sir
Christopher Gent. Why did you do that?
A. The explanation of this is that this particular document was
to have gone some weeks earlier, in line with the other
people and major title sponsors. However, MasterCard was of
key interest and key value, which is something that was so
important, what David valued with Jordan in that its
independence, but the business to business opportunities of
MasterCard was a huge opportunity - 660 million card holders
and the opportunity, and particularly of Jordan because the
only team of any description in any sport that MasterCard
sponsor is Jordan, so it is one of our high quality major
partners and as a result of this I was a little uptight with
Mark as to why this document did not go some weeks
previously, and you can see why this then happened.
Q. No, I do not, I am afraid, because we have now got to the
stage on your evidence to his Lordship that the decision had
already been made on the 22nd, so why now send the letter?
A. Because it was one of the things that Vodafone valued most
about Jordan, quite apart from its youth or vitality and all
of those things that happened that you do not get with the
manufacturer. The key thing was its partners. They were
Deutsche Post, Honda and, of course, MasterCard, but
Mark Gallagher was in charge of MasterCard.
Q. The question was why send that letter on 3rd April?
A. I do not know why it should be 3rd April.
Q. Why work on the draft over the weekend so that it could be
sent on 3rd April?
A. Sorry, I think the draft was done some weeks previous to
Q. We have looked at the e-mails ----
A. I realise that, but I am trying to explain that a draft was
done some weeks before that.
Q. A draft may have been. Why were you working on the draft
with Mr. Gallagher at the weekend for it to be send sent on
A. The reason the document was done was because it had not been
done in the first place. They were a key partner, vital to
Jordan, but equally vital to Vodafone and on that basis we
made sure that the document was sent.
Q. I am going to ask you the question again, if I may. Why were
you making sure that it was sent on 3rd April?
A. The 3rd April is no particular date.
Q. And why were you devoting time on that weekend so that that
document could be sent by Susan Stashower at the latest on
A. I can only assume that 3rd April is the time we are in
Brazil, which is one of the absolute key markets for
MasterCard, and it came to our attention.
Q. Sorry, I do not understand that answer at all.
A. I am saying that I was a little bit irate with Mark because
the letter that he had been asked to send some weeks
previously had not gone.
Q. Yes, but according to your evidence there had been a
momentous change since then. The decision had been taken and
therefore why ----
A. They still wanted the business to business link and one of
the things about Jordan is the opportunity of being able to
mix brand to brand and work together with a joint common
interest for added value and business. MasterCard is a huge
brand which would have been hugely important to Vodafone.
Q. I will not press that any further with you, Mr. Jordan.
Could you now go to tab 95, please. You say this agreement
had been made on 22nd March, but not so confidential that you
could not tell Mr. Perring. Is that right?
A. Mr. Perring?
A. I told Mr. Perring immediately after the conversation.
Q. So here are some notes that are prepared for Mr. Kieser.
Do you see that, at 95 onwards?
Q. Yes. If you look through those, they are prepared for
Mr. Kieser so that he is armed with all the arguments to put
forward on your behalf to win the Vodafone contract. Have a
look at it.
A. I have not seen it before.
Q. You have a look at it. I think you have seen it before, have
Q. Prepared by Mr. Phillips. We have a copy of his note.
Let us have a look at the document, prepared by Mr. Phillips
on behalf of Jordan, note to Mr. Kieser about 5th April so
that he can put the best arguments forward for Jordan as to
why they should get the contract; all right?
Q. You tell me where in there there is any mention of any
agreement having been made on 22nd March?
A. Is there one?
Q. I cannot find it.
A. OK, I will take your word.
Q. As Mr. Perring had been told, and it was a pretty important
point, why was not Mr. Kieser being told?
A. I cannot answer that.
Q. You cannot answer it?
A. No. Mr. Kieser would not necessarily be on our side in terms
of how he would fill in the information.
Q. I do not understand that either. Would you like to expand on
A. I do not know how Mr. Kieser would not.
Q. You said something about him not being on your side and how
he would to fill in the information. I do not understand?
A. No; his information flow would come from another side, which
would be Perring, Mr. Haines, Mr. Harris.
Q. You told Mr. Perring ----
A. I told Mr. Perring because Mr. Perring rang us expecting a
good phone call from Mr. Haines.
Q. And now we are looking at notes for Mr. Kieser ----
A. Yes, but I did not have this kind of conversation with
Q. And I am asking, because I do not understand, why if this
agreement had been made Mr. Kieser was not being told about
A. Because it was absolutely confidential.
Q. Then why is Mr. Perring being told about it?
A. Mr. Perring was the person who rang us up to tell us that we
would be expecting good news.
Q. Why is Mr. Perring being told afterwards about it and not
A. I have no idea.
Q. You do not know?
A. Mr. Kieser was always very difficult to find. At this
particular time, he was spending a huge amount of time in
South Africa apart from anything else and my contact, and
particularly Mr. Phillips' contact, was always with
Q. But you rang Mr. Kieser, did you not, on 4th or 5th April?
A. I believe so. I do not recall it actually, but I understand
I did because I heard him say it this morning.
Q. And so you would have told him then, would you not?
You would have told him then about the agreement, would you
A. Not necessarily. Not at all.
Q. So you tell Mr. Perring but you do not tell Mr. Kieser?
A. That is absolutely correct.
Q. You have mentioned, I think, about somebody being on your
side. Was that distinguishing Mr. Kieser from Mr. Perring?
A. Not at all.
Q. It is a bit odd, is it not, that when one is briefing
Mr. Kieser on the position so far as Jordan is concerned,
that he is not told there has been an agreement? A bit odd,
is it not?
A. I have to say that the contact that we had in Browns was
through Mr. Perring. Really the only contact that I had with
Mr. Kieser was either about money or commission.
Q. You have only got to look at it; it is quite a detailed
document setting out all the reasons that can be said in
Jordan's favour. I simply do not understand why, if there
had been this agreement, Mr. Kieser was not being told about
A. I am not sure who would have told him.
A. I have to say again, Mr. Kieser's last meetings with me were
about commissions and were about money mainly, and he had no
other reason to ring or talk to me. I did not feel I was the
reporting mechanism to tell him in this particular case what
Q. But you rang him, did you not, on 4th or 5th April?
A. I believe so.
Q. Why did you not tell him?
A. Because I did not feel it was my job to tell him and I did
not think if it was confidential for Mr. Haines that I should
tell him. It should not come from me.
Q. Who should it come from?
A. I would have expected Haines, if anyone was going to say
anything to him.
Q. Go back to C4A, would you? Go back to 973; the last lines of
Jane Graves' note, "Denise Lewis - Orange, [Eddie Jordan] had
meeting." Do you see that?
Q. What was that about?
A. I think, as I alluded to perhaps earlier this morning, it was
a bizarre situation. We were approached by Orange to know
what was going on, what were our plans and what were we
thinking of doing, but it was particularly to do with a
person I got to know quite well later, Dominic Denny, who was
there as a marketing executive adding brand and leveraging of
the brand in the merchandising, and he was very keen to put
in place a music programme around Grand Prixes.
Q. If we go to tab 39, that is the letter of 28th March that
Denise Lewis writes to you. "Dear Eddie".
Q. You received that letter, did you not?
Q. And you read it?
Q. Shall we read it together: "Further to our telephone
conversation earlier today, I wanted to thank you for your
interest in Orange and for the opportunity of discussing how
we might work together in the future." So it was you who was
expressing an interest in Orange, was it not?
A. That is not true.
Q. Not true?
A. Not at all true.
Q. We have started with the first paragraph and it is something
that Denise Lewis is saying that is wrong; is that right?
A. Please, we need to be accurate. Mr. Dominic Denny requested
a meeting, that I should attend a breakfast meeting in the
Ritz and that I would be impressed Miss Denise Lewis. She
was a very fine marketeer. I did do that and I met her.
It was very clear that all of the initial conversations with
Mr. Denny was about a rock and roll experience.
Q. The letter goes on: "Unfortunately, it is our Board's
decision that whilst partnering with Jordan would indeed be a
fantastic fit, both in terms of brand and performance, we are
just not in the right place at the right time.
"It is a matter of policy that Orange does not break
any contractual bond and Formula One is no different in this
respect." Want to keep talking." It is quite clear, is it
not, Mr. Jordan, that what was being discussed with Orange
was indeed Formula 1?
A. Absolutely Formula 1 at this that stage, yes.
In addition ----
Q. Do not let us bother about the additional. Formula 1 was
being discussed. What was being discussed with Orange at
that time was something which, if it went forward, would
result in them breaking their existing contractual
A. If it went forward.
A. No; she was always very clear, absolutely clear. Rigid, in
fact. They had a contract with Arrows. Their chairman and
chief executive was a personal friend of the owners of
Q. Who was?
A. Mr. (Inaudible) and Mr. Walkinshaw, which was well known.
They were friends together. There was an option, I
understand, in Arrows' side that if they scored one point,
their contract was automatically renewed. It was quite
obvious they were going to score a point, so I presume that
is what she was talking about here, that she would love a fit
but it would not ever be possible.
Q. Arrows, you say, was part-owned by Mr. Walkinshaw. Would it
be fair to say that you regarded Mr. Walkinshaw as a
Q. So there would be no question in your mind, would there, of
you trying to entice Arrows away from Mr. Walkinshaw's
company behind his back, would there?
A. Not in any way would I do that.
Q. Because that would be a disreputable thing to do, would it
A. I agree.
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: You said Arrows, you probably meant Orange,
did you not?
MR. ALDOUS: I suspect I have got in a complete muddle. It would
be a disreputable thing to do, would it not, for you to
entice Orange away from Arrows, would it not, at a time when
they were under a contract?
Q. And to do so without revealing even that you were in
discussions with Orange to Mr. Walkinshaw?
A. I did tell Mr. Walkinshaw that I was talking to them, which
was the thing that I went to talk to them about, which was
the music. He was fully aware of this.
Q. So we are now 28th March, do you see?
Q. Long before any board decision at Vodafone and you have had
discussions with Orange which relate to Formula 1?
A. During the course of a conversation about music, Formula 1,
Arrows came up, as you would expect it to do so, because they
were in that field and, like normal people, they would want
to know what our situation was and we would like to know what
their situation was. It was just normal dialogue.
Q. I put this to you, Mr. Jordan. Were you already seeking to
persuade Orange to sponsor Jordan?
A. No, I was not.
Q. And seeking to persuade Orange to sponsor Jordan even though
they would have to break their contract with Arrows?
A. The main purpose I spoke the Orange was as a result of
Mr. Dominic Denny pursuing continually (and of course I could
not tell him because of the confidentiality) a music
connection with Jordan. That was the reason why a lot of
this happened and it was absolutely vital that you could not
stop talking to them, otherwise you would attract suspicion.
Q. Did those discussions continue with Orange throughout April?
A. I suspect they did.
Q. And did those discussions with Orange involve Orange
A. I do not believe Orange sponsored Jordan, no.
Q. Did those discussions with Orange in April involve Orange
A. Please, I have not quite got that. You mean were we
A. OK. Certainly not from my side. Everything I needed to do
I was being requested from their side.
Q. We need to have C9 open as well, so we will need two bundles,
C9 and C5.
A. Which one?
Q. You are going to have page ----
A. Sorry, I have both.
Q. C9. Put C5 to one side, take C9 and go to 1882.
Q. This is in Mr. Phillips' notebook. 1882, figures at the top.
Do you see that? Are you in 1882?
A. 1892, I apologise. A or the other one?
A. 1882, yes.
Q. Whose writing is that?
A. That is mine.
Q. That is your writing?
Q. Can we just decipher it. What are the figures there -- 50?
A. 55 and 60.
Q. And those are all in millions?
Q. Totalling 160 or 165 million?
Q. For sponsorship for 2003, 04 and 05?
A. Looks like it, yes.
Q. And who are the proposed sponsors there?
A. It would appear to be Orange.
Q. How do you account for that being written in the notebook
A. I wrote it.
Q. I said how do you account for it being there?
A. It is on Mr. Phillips' notebook and I wrote it down. So .....
Q. So you were in discussions at the point, were you, with
Orange about a potential sponsorship ----
A. No, no, no. I am quite certain that Mr. Denny felt that if
Arrows could not score any points and were not eligible, that
this could be the kind of money that would be available.
I would have to check so as I am not ....
Q. So you were in discussions. Whether the impetus was coming
from you or Mr. Denny, we will explore, but you were in
discussions at this time with Orange about a potential
sponsorship by Orange for 2003-2005 for a total of over
A. I had been requested by Orange to see what was the potential
if everything went together on the music programme and all of
the other marketing opportunities. This was the kind of
money that they may have available.
Q. Go to the next pages, we have got it typed at 1882A or in the
manuscript at 1883. Here we have in detail the sponsorship
rights that would be available to Orange, do we not, in both
2002, 03, 04 and 05?
A. I have not seen this before.
Q. You just spend a little time looking at it, would you,
because it is a document that Mr. Phillips, one of your
trusted lieutenants, produced? You just spend a little time
looking at it and see what it shows because I amount going to
suggest to you, Mr. Jordan, you were very, very closely
involved in discussions with Orange at this time, so just
look at the document. If we go through it with you, for
2002 -- because Orange at that stage were title sponsors of
Arrows, were they not?
A. No; we were in 2001.
Q. In 2002 it was envisaged that Orange would be title sponsors
Q. And so what you were then offering Orange was branding, was
it not, on certain parts of the car, but not title
A. Yes, I can see that.
Q. Then when it came to 2003, 04 and 05, you were offering title
sponsorship to Orange?
A. I do not know whether we were actually offering that to them.
That is what this document says here, as you have described,
but I am not sure if this is the form of either an offer or
-- my recollection from Mr. Phillips was he told me to go
away with Orange and play with my music elsewhere because he
thought that this was just peripheral and a waste of time,
and stop playing games.
Q. So by now these games, if you describe them as that, had got
to this degree of detail, had they, when you had gone through
almost every part of the car to see what signage and branding
would be made available to Orange in the years 2002 through
A. The reason for some of this is very clear, that we could not
seem to brush off Mr. Denny. He was an extremely nice person
who was keen to get the music and the music led into other
things. He felt by offering or trying to entice us or giving
us the idea that there could possible be long-term
sponsorship that it might actually be something that we would
be interested in.
Q. Keep that bundle C9; you will need C5 as well. Put C4A away
if you have it and take C5. Go, if you would, to 1173, which
is at tab 77. Do you see that?
Q. Those notes show, which are entitled "ORANGE NOTES", that in
that first year, 2002, when Orange were title sponsors or
would be title sponsors to Arrows, you were offering them
secondary sponsorship for $16 million, were you not?
A. 1173. There is no heading.
Q. If you want to have also ----
A. I just would like to know where this went to.
Q. Yes. If you want to have C9 open as well -- I will just see
if my note is right -- we will see where it comes from
Mr. Phillips' notebook. You want to go to page 1887. Do you
Q. So that is its provenance. I cannot help you beyond that,
but just look at the document at 1173, would you?
Q. And just look to yourself at those points, 1 to 6. You are
making there, are you not, or Mr. Phillips is, a number of
selling points to put to Orange to entice Orange to sponsor
Jordan, including a five-year contract with Honda, which you
say opens up huge dealer network worldwide. Do you see that?
Q. So this is a selling pitch, is it not?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. What is it?
A. This is continually the request of Mr. Dominic Denny, who is
visiting me on a regular basis, trying to get us -- we could
not tell him of the confidentiality about Vodafone and
clearly Mr. Phillips is saying to me what are we going to do
and I said we have to keep it going, and that is exactly what
we are doing.
Q. But you are setting out, or Mr. Phillips is, here -- just
look at those points, 1 to 6. These are all points that are
coming from your side, Jordan?
A. Absolutely, yes.
Q. And they are points that are being put forward to encourage
Orange to enter into an agreement with you?
A. I do not believe that is the purpose for this, but I could be
Q. You would agree, would you not, that that is how it can
fairly be read?
Q. That is how it can fairly be read?
A. The type can be read?
A. Yes, I can read it.
Q. No. A fair reading of that document is that it sets out in
numbered form points that would be made by Jordan to
encourage Orange to enter into a sponsorship agreement with
A. If we did a proper presentation and this was it, I would be
surprised, yes. In a proper context, in a proper
presentation and a proper presentation [sic], if that was in
that context, yes, I would absolutely agree.
Q. Turn, would you, to tab 79. Who is Lindsay Haylett?
A. She was then my PA.
Q. Your PA. Just look at this document. And who is Dominic
A. Dominic Denny is the gentleman from Orange.
Q. And he is the person who you say, what, was making the
running, but you did not want to tell him what was going on,
is that right, with Vodafone?
A. I wanted to keep the confidential agreement with Vodafone
Q. Shall we see what he is writing.
"Dear Lindsay, Please note that I do not have a secure
email here so would ask that for the obvious security reasons
- nothing be sent to me at this address at this time.
"Should you need to contact me via email, please do so
at", and he gives his home number. Do you see that?
Q. It looks, does it not, as if you and Mr. Denny were
conducting negotiations -- you may be smiling ----
A. No, I am not smiling. I am just ----
Q. It looks, does it not, as though you and Mr. Denny were
conducting negotiations which Mr. Denny did not want a record
A. I am not aware of that. Mr. Denny -- I believe his only
brief -- was new to Orange. I cannot be certain of his
position, but he was on a branding and merchandising link to
Formula 1. He was, I suppose, in the marketing mix inside
Orange. I am not sure where his position sat in terms of the
family tree and I cannot answer why he asked for this.
Q. Because one explanation may be, and we may see that
explanation in a moment, was because the reason why it had to
be kept confidential was because Orange at that stage were
contracted to Arrows?
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: Mr. Aldous, I have had a request from the
stenographer for a short break. Choose your moment.
MR. ALDOUS: One more document and then it will be a good moment.
(To the witness) The document at tab 80, if you can look at
that, is Mr. Denny's. What do we describe it as, visiting
card, business card. "Head of Global Corporate Articulation,
Orange Media Centre". We will come back after the short
break, Mr. Jordan, perhaps to look at one or two other
documents which may explain the document we have been looking
at at tab 79.
(A short break)
MR. ALDOUS: Mr. Jordan, would you go to tab 81?
Q. No. 1178.
Q. Is this a letter that you sent?
Q. It has got your signature on it?
A. It has got "Eddie" on it.
Q. Who is Eddie other than you?
A. No; but I do not normally sign Eddie.
Q. Who signed it then?
A. I signed Eddie.
Q. Who signed this letter?
A. I signed Eddie.
Q. Then you sent it?
A. No, it did not ever get sent.
Q. It did not ever get sent, I see; but you signed it?
A. I signed it.
Q. You sign the letter, but then it does not get sent?
Q. Does not get sent to Mr. Denny at that particular address or
does not get sent to Mr. Denny at all?
A. It does not get sent to Mr. Denny at all.
Q. So why sign it, then?
A. I do not know. There is typos as well in it, so I cannot
imagine why I signed it.
Q. Did you hand it to Mr. Denny quietly?
Q. Did you hand it to Mr. Denny quietly?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. So here is a letter which you signed. Mr. Denny is sending
an e-mail saying "I do not have a secure e-mail at the
office. I want everything to my home address". You signed
this letter, but you do not send it to Mr. Denny. Is that
A. That is correct.
Q. Shall we look at the letter, because it is proposals, is it
not, that are coming from you; yes?
A. I wrote the letter. I signed the letter.
Q. It is proposals that are coming from you?
Q. Shall we see what your proposals are. You say, "I felt that
out [sic] meeting yesterday was very positive and clearly
confirmed to me that there is a great and exciting synergy
between Orange and Jordan.
"Obviously I respect the Board's decision with regard
to their current contractual obligations however I believe
there are some options to consider with could lead to a long
term future between our two companies."
Then you set out two options. So at this stage of the
letter that we are reading, you would be proposing two
options to Orange.
A. No, we did not propose any options.
Q. Listen to the question. Where we have got to in this letter,
you would be proposing two options to Orange.
A. If this letter went, yes.
Q. We will look at the letter and will discuss what happens to
it later. May we take the letter at face value as to what
your intentions were at the time you wrote the letter and
signed it. So at the time you wrote the letter and signed
it, you were intending to propose two options to Orange.
A. No, that is incorrect. What I was under pressure for was to
keep the meeting that I had with Dominic Denny and it was
difficult to keep Dominic at arm's length without spilling
the beans about what we had got into an agreement with
Vodafone. I cannot be certain, but I remember Ian said "I am
sorry, you cannot possibly go any further. You have got to
Q. Can we look at the letter at the time it is signed by you,
before you say any decision was taken not to send it? Do you
understand? It is very simple. We are looking at your state
of mind at the time the letter is signed; all right? Now,
your state of mind when the letter is signed is that you are
intending to put forward two options to Orange?
A. No, that is not true.
Q. What are you seeking to do in that letter?
A. I wrote the letter and these were ideas that we had that
I did not ever send it because I did not ever intend
Mr. Denny to have it.
Q. So you drafted the letter, it is typed up and you sign it,
and these are only ideas?
Q. Let us look at your ideas; OK? We will for the moment stick
with the terminology "ideas". Your idea was to propose two
options to Orange. That was your idea. That was your idea -
to propose two options to Orange?
A. What is in here.
Q. That was your idea?
A. This is my idea.
Q. Let us look at your idea because it is your idea that I am
concerned with and not so much Mr. Denny's; do you see?
So I want to look at your idea. It was your idea,
Mr. Jordan, was it not, to suggest option 1 to Orange?
A. I had no intention of making any formal proposal to Orange at
Q. It was your idea, to use the word "idea", and the letter sets
out your ideas, to put forward option 1?
A. It was a thought, yes. It was an idea.
Q. It was your idea to put forward option 1?
A. I was not intending to put forward anything. This is a
documentation of what I thought may be a way of keeping
Dominic off my back, so to speak.
Q. Let us look at your idea, option 1. Your idea was that
Orange would purchase the rights now -- that is in 2001 --
for a full title sponsorship package for 2003 to 05 and it
was your idea that by doing that, Orange would eliminate
Vodafone's opportunity of title sponsorship with a leading
team. That was your idea.
A. That is what I wrote.
Q. Your idea was that by Vodafone being eliminated, that would
be an attraction or an inducement to Orange. Quite obviously
so, is it not?
A. It could relate to that, yes, obviously.
Q. So within something like three or four days of Imola -- do
you remember Imola?
Q. When you say Gallaher were told that you had a sponsorship
agreement with Vodafone, here is your idea that if you were
to contract with Orange, it would provide Orange with the
advantage of having shut Vodafone out from any title
sponsorship with a leading team. That was your idea.
A. That is what is here.
Q. Not the letter, I suggest, of someone, Mr. Jordan, who
honestly believed that Vodafone had agreed anything with
A. I disagree with that.
Q. Had you thought, Mr. Jordan, that you had an existing
agreement with Vodafone, you would have not conceived of an
idea of putting forward as an option to Orange that if they
entered into a contract with you, it would shut Vodafone out?
It would not have gone through your mind?
A. I was very clear where my contract was.
Q. Were you very clear where your conscience was?
Q. No one in good conscience, Mr. Jordan, could have had the
idea of putting forward such an option, could they, if they
had thought they had a contract existing with Vodafone?
A. I beg to differ with you. I think it is quite normal that
people have to respect certain things in a business life.
Q. Why in respecting something in a business life is it
necessary to go to the extent of having an idea of suggesting
that actually if Orange entered into an agreement, it would
should shut Vodafone out? Why is that respecting a
A. There are certain things, but there are only ten teams and it
is quite obvious where sponsors can go. There are limited
Q. Why is it respecting a confidence to Vodafone to have the
idea of suggesting to Orange to enter into a contract with
you and thereby eliminate Vodafone's opportunity of a title
A. I can only guess that they were obviously competitors and
that maybe something that would be of interest to them.
I have no idea why that would be the case.
Q. But this was your ----
A. It did not affect me.
Q. This was your idea.
A. It did not affect me.
Q. It was your idea, was it not?
A. I am sorry, there are certain times that you actually put and
formulate ideas. Whether they go out or not, I think is the
important thing. It is fertile brain.
Q. So your idea was to contract with Orange ----
A. No, never.
Q. Let me finish. Your idea was to contract with Orange and
shut Vodafone out?
A. I never said that.
Q. This is your idea, is it not?
A. No. It is an idea. It is on paper, sure.
Q. You tell me what is to be read by the last three lines of
that page, other than enter into an option with Orange and
thereby shut Vodafone out. What else does it mean?
A. I can only tell you what I have told you.
Q. What else does it mean?
A. I do not know.
Q. You wrote the letter. What does it mean?
A. It is a thought process that often occurs on planning things
for the future.
Q. You just tell me in your own words what this thought process
A. I cannot speculate exactly what my thought process was, other
than the fact that clearly I had been -- I will not say
"handed", as that would be an unfair word -- pushed by Orange
and Dominic Denny was getting surprised as to why I was not
sending documents to him with regard to a potential
sponsorship. He just could not understand why I was not
showing the slightest sign of, if you like, normal reply to
Q. Why did you put this thought process down here?
A. I cannot recall.
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: Mr. Jordan, you really do need to
concentrate on this letter. It begins by saying you have
just had a very positive meeting with Mr. Denny the day
A. My Lord, I had a positive meeting. You have to understand
that this man, Mr. Denny, I could not get it through to him
and I had to make sure that I could not disclose what I had
already with Vodafone. That was a clear thing. Mr. Phillips
was very clear. He said "just stop", and we did stop.
MR. ALDOUS: We are at the stage ----
A. We did not send the letter. We did not make a presentation
and we did not propose to them.
Q. Let us take it in stages. We are at the stage that this
letter was written, is signed by you and I am looking at your
idea and thought process, because that is important to
understand your state of mind. Do you understand?
Q. I want to understand your state of mind, your thinking, at
that stage in writing the last three lines on that page.
You just explain to me what your thought of mind was.
A. There was a set of circumstances - a number of teams who
would have sponsorship and certain things may or may not be
available to them if a set of circumstances came where Jordan
or whoever did not take up Vodafone.
Q. What was your thought process in putting this forward as an
attractive point to Orange, just tell me?
A. I did not put it to Orange as ----
Q. At the time that the letter was written ----
Q. --- and it was written and signed, at that stage what is your
thought process as to why this would be put forward in such a
A. I can't .... I can't fully explain what the full relevance of
it was at the time.
Q. It may not be fully. Just explain, would you, as best you
can, because you are here to support your company's case, you
just explain as best you can what your thought process and
reasoning was for putting that in that letter at that stage?
A. But I can't answer that because I don't know why I would do
that. Clearly I wrote it and it's a fact I signed the page,
but the thought process could have been any one of a million
Q. The thought process was, was it not, Mr. Jordan, that this
would be an inducement to Orange, a competitor of Vodafone,
to enter into an option with Jordan and thereby deprive
Vodafone of any title sponsorship?
A. You can absolutely read it like that, if that is the case. I
do not see it like that.
Q. Is there any other way it can be seen apart from like that?
A. I am suggesting to you that I was under some pressure with
this Dominic Denny to come up with a realistic answer why I
was not coming up with a proposal for Orange and I can see
clearly -- I stand by what I wrote here, and I think it's
misleading because it does not reflect what I believe I was
intending to reflect.
Q. Look at the paragraph above that: "Obviously I respect the
board's decision with regard to their current contractual
obligations. However, I believe there are some options to
consider which could lead to a long-term future."
Q. So your thought process or ideas at this stage were that
these were ideas coming from you.
A. Oh yes.
Q. So you were coming forward with positive ideas as to how to
get round the contractual position which Orange were in. It
was you who was coming forward with these ideas.
A. No. Clearly they were in a contractual position with
A. ---- and only things. This is what I was making it very
clear. It was only after that that Orange were even in a
position to talk about anything and I was using this as a
delaying tactic, obviously as a result of my commitment with
Q. No, I think you need to read the letter more carefully,
Mr. Jordan. I don't think that is a correct answer, is it?
What you are suggesting is because of the contractual
position with Arrows for 2002 may be, that Orange could
immediately enter into an option with you for 2003, 4 and 5.
That is what you are saying.
A. That is what it says here, yes.
Q. So you, Mr. Jordan's, ideas are to come up with a positive
idea at this stage to get round Orange's contractual
A. No, because for 3, 4 and 5, based on what Dominic Denny told
me, they were out of contract with Arrows.
Q. Yes, and you are suggesting now, this is the idea here, that
they enter into an immediate option with you -- an immediate
option with you -- for 3, 4 and 5 and it is your idea that if
they were to do that, then that would eliminate Vodafone's
opportunity to title sponsorship. That was your idea.
A. You can read it like that.
Q. You were coming up with that idea as a positive suggestion
from you. That was the idea.
A. Dominic Denny was looking for ideas to bring do to his board.
Q. Then, if you look at option two on the next page, again an
idea of yours, that Orange would purchase an entry level
branding package for 2002 at a favourable rate, sharing with
Jordan's existing partners, and then you envisage that title
could be part of the initial programme: "This option causes
no conflict with Arrows but does, however, through Jordan,
secure Orange's future with a motor manufacturer-backed team,
a great opportunity for long-term planning of the campaign
and allows our faithful, long-term supporter to exit with
dignity, conveys a very positive PR message, offers an
opportunity for joint collaboration with existing sponsors,
such as Mastercard, Honda, Deutsche Post and Siemens
Infineon." So this is your idea is it?
Q. You say: "We have already discussed costs, which could be in
the region of 12 million." That is the same, I think, as
about 16 million dollars. So you had already discussed that?
A. It would appear so.
Q. Then you go on about the unique opportunity to blend the
elements of the two major promotions, Formula 1 and music,
and you thank him here for the time yesterday and you look
forward to talking on Monday -- on Monday. So these are
ideas that are coming from you at a time when you are in very
active discussion with Mr. Denny.
A. Mr. Denny was a neighbour.
Q. He was a neighbour? So you did not send the letter, then?
A. The letter never got sent.
Q. Because if you had agreed with Orange to enter into a
sponsorship agreement, what would you have told Vodafone?
A. I had no intention of entering into an agreement with Orange,
I already had an agreement with Vodafone.
Q. Could we look at bundle C9 and go to page 1937. You met
Mr. Denny on the Monday, didn't you?
Q. 1937. Did I not give you the right one?
A. Yes, but could I have a date for that, please?
Q. No. I will give you that. It is dealing with options one
and two, so perhaps we will get a lead-in in a moment. Did
you meet with Mr. Denny on the Monday?
A. I don't know.
Q. We have got a transcript of this document in Mr. Phillips'
notebook. Do you see the reference to options one and two?
Do you see that?
Q. And the buy-in option to shut Vodafone out. Do you see that?
Q. "Not execute anything; 6 million." Do you see that?
Q. "Not a breach" -- it may be -- "plus TW", which I imagine
stands for Tom Walkenshaw?
A. "Not breach"? I don't know.
Q. We can check the transcript, or "not break". We need not
bother about that for the moment. Did you suggest to
Mr. Denny that the way through this problem was to actually
not document anything?
A. Not at all.
Q. But did you not suggest to Mr. Denny, at a meeting you had
with him, that there was great attraction in option one in
shutting Vodafone out, but the important thing was not to
A. Not at all. Mr. Denny could have, and in various discussions
that we would have, Mr. Denny was very pushy with regard to
getting Jordan and his particular section into this. I think
I have tried to make it clear (hopefully it has come across
that way) that Mr. Denny was fresh in the business of
Formula 1. He had arrived from America after about 14-15
years in the music business and music was his business. That
is what he wanted, and he wanted anything that could get him
that, he tried to help out with.
Q. So wasn't it, the position that you had got to now in your
discussions with Mr. Denny, he did not want anything on his
office e-mail and you, being concerned, I suggest, about the
contractual position with Arrows, were suggesting you didn't
A. That is inaccurate.
Q. But pressing very hard with Mr. Denny that there was an
attraction of doing a deal with Orange, offering as an
inducement that it would shut out Vodafone, one of the
principal competitors, who would not get title sponsorship
A. I don't believe that.
Q. Can you help me on this. We have seen the letter that you
say was never sent; we have seen these notes. Why was
Vodafone being mentioned at all in these documents?
A. I can't be deadly accurate; I can assume. There was a lot of
speculation about the telco businesses and what was happening
and I have no real guarantee to be able to tell you.
Q. It came from you, you see, because we have seen in the letter
that you drafted. Why mention Vodafone?
A. I can't be certain.
Q. Certain or not, you must have an idea how you came to mention
Q. To Mr. Denny.
A. I don't know when Vodafone came up in the conversation. I
have no idea.
Q. If you go to 1947, this is a note in Mr. Phillips' notebook.
Who was Peter Raymond?
A. I understand Peter Raymond was a manager inside Orange and I
can't remember his title, I don't know. I am not sure if he
is there any more.
Q. So the meetings that you were having with Orange were not
just with Mr. Denny?
A. I understand that the meeting with Mr. Denny was mainly with
Mr. Phillips, but I could be wrong.
Q. You met Mr. Raymond?
A. I met Mr. Raymond.
Q. This note is recording a conversation that he, Mr. Phillips,
had with you on his way back from a meeting with Mr. Raymond?
A. On the way back? Yes, that appears so.
Q. It looks, and help me, that you had been holding back during
this period of doing any deal with Gallaher whilst you were
negotiating with Orange?
A. There was no negotiation with Orange.
Q. And Orange, as we know, were contracted to Arrows for 2001,
Q. And if Arrows scored a point, would then Arrows have the
right to renew it for 2002?
Q. So at this time, in 2001, there is an existing contract
between Arrows and Orange?
Q. Which, as you say, if Arrows scored a point, they would have
the right to renew Orange sponsorship for 2002?
Q. And I think you said not long ago that you thought that they
would score a point that year?
A. They had a good car; yes.
Q. Even if they did not score a point that year, as the current
sponsor team, Arrows would no doubt hope to discuss renewal
for 2002 with Orange?
A. Yes, I believe that would be the case. People were ----
Q. You were proposing, Mr. Jordan, weren't you, to get Orange to
enter into a contract now for 2002 whilst they were still
contracted to Arrows?
A. No, I believe that the situation about 2002, again, was
brought by Mr. Denny, who did introduce us not just to Peter
Raymond, but also to Denise Lewis, primarily linked to the
music and then, of course, he added the benefit in the hope
of luring us to this programme.
Q. So you, according to this note, had discussed with
Mr. Phillips on the way back from that meeting, and that
note, I suggest, records what you and Mr. Phillips had
decided; that you would get Orange to enter into a contract
then, for 2002, whilst they were still contracted to Arrows
and that if Mr. Walkenshaw did score the point, you would
offload the contract?
Q. Yes, offload.
A. "If TW scores ...." I can't make reference to that. Offload
-- not a word that I use.
Q. So we have got a situation now, have we not, Mr. Jordan, that
you say you told Gallaher ----
A. Absolutely not.
Q. ---- at Imola that you had a contract with Vodafone?
Q. You say you told Honda?
Q. But, from these documents, you were in active discussions
with Orange for sponsorship?
A. That is untrue.
Q. And that we have now reached the stage that you were prepared
to enter into a contract with Orange which would be in breach
of their contract with Mr. Walkenshaw?
A. I think that is untrue.
Q. I suggest to you that, from looking at the previous document,
the suggestion was that it would be done, but not in writing,
so that Arrows would not find out?
A. Absolutely incorrect.
Q. I suggest to you also that there was no question that
Mr. Walkenshaw knew what you were up to, Mr. Jordan, and
quite apart from what may have been going on between you and
others, you were also at this stage negotiating behind
Mr. Walkenshaw's back as well to take the sponsorship off
A. Completely untrue. Mr. Walkenshaw and I spoke, and we do
speak to this day, quite frequently. He knew clearly the
situation that I had been approached about the Jordan Music
Experience and how it could help boost and create a better
brand value for Orange at Grand Prix racing. It was not in
Jordan Grand Prix's best interest to outline or to say or to
breach a confidentiality. I am sorry if I give the wrong
impression, but I went along with Mr. Denny's requests.
Q. Moving along, if I may, to the meeting at the Pelham Hotel,
who had arranged that meeting?
A. I think Mr. Kieser.
Q. At any rate, either Mr. Kieser or somebody from Vodafone; it
had been arranged that end?
A. Oh yes, not from us.
Q. You were told at that meeting by Mr. Haines, weren't you,
that the situation at that stage was that the sponsorship
contract was for Ferrari to lose?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. And you never once, during the whole of that meeting, said
that there had been an agreement entered into between you and
Mr. Haines on 22nd March, did you; not once?
A. That is not true. On the way out of that meeting, with
Mr. Haines by my side, walking to the lobby when we were
exiting that plane, I said, "Look, David, look what's going
on?" Clearly Ferrari was well-known and it was part of a
rumour at that point. I was told clearly by Mr. Haines, and,
later on, on the footpath by Mr. Kieser, "Don't worry,
everything is under control. None of the others can
Q. I suggest you never once, at the meeting at the Pelham Hotel
did you ever say that you had entered into an agreement with
Vodafone on 22nd March?
A. I believe I did, and I did on the way exiting -- when I was
not in front of all the other people.
Q. Why didn't you say it in front of everyone?
A. Because it was confidential. I was not sure and I had no
idea who Mr. Haines had told.
Q. Could you take C6, please, and go to tab 48, a document we
have looked at before, in the fourth paragraph: "Naturally I
informed my partners." That paragraph we have looked at
before. You mention there they have taken the trouble to
contact you and you mention Dr. Jung as one of those persons?
Q. You are saying in that letter, are you, that you told
Dr. Jung that you had entered into an agreement with
Mr. Haines for Jordan to have the title sponsorship from
Vodafone. Is that right?
A. That is correct. That is not what it says here, though, is
it? "Naturally I informed my partners, who had taken the
trouble to contact you."
Q. "Of what I believe to be your decision."
Q. Let us be clear as to what you are saying. You saying, are
you, that you told Dr. Jung ----
Q. ---- that you had entered into an agreement with Mr. Haines
for Jordan to be sponsored by Vodafone?
A. That is correct.
Q. When did you tell him that?
A. He was at every race so I can only assume .... I remember him
ringing me in Malaysia. Yes, I did ask him to speak to
Mr. Haines, because Mr. Haines was very clear. He said:
"I know you have some people in high places, please don't do
that. I am the person making the decision. I am in charge.
Make sure these people speak to me." The problem with
Dr. Jung, Dr. Jung was on the board of Infineon and Siemens
and they had been previous customers, or continuing
customers, of Vodafone, and he knew Chris Gent. So he
refused; he wanted to speak directly to Chris Gent, so I knew
there was contact there.
Q. When you tell Dr. Jung that you have made an agreement with
Mr. Haines on 22nd March for Vodafone to sponsor Jordan?
When did you tell Dr. Jung?
A. I can't be sure but I believe it was some time .... It was
not in Malaysia; I don't believe it was, but it could have
been in Brazil. I think the most likely place would have
Q. Have you seen what Dr. Jung's witness statement says?
A. I believe I have seen that, yes.
Q. Do you want to see it again?
A. Yes, please.
Q. In B, tab 11, page 148, paragraph 9.
Q. Dr. Jung will be giving evidence.
Q. You have seen what he says there?
Q. Do you want to reflect on whether in fact you did tell
Dr. Jung that?
A. I absolutely told Dr. Jung.
Q. So the confidences that you agreed, you say, with Mr. Haines
did not extend to him?
A. To. Jung?
A. Dr. Jung .... Infineon were one of our sponsors. They were a
very senior technical partner. He was of the highest calibre
in management and chief executive of Siemens, a well-known
brand. He was also the confidant of our driver, Heinz Harald
Frentzen and he was a vitally important person to me but also
a great friend at that time; not so when Mr. Frentzen left
the team. So when I asked him, just as a matter of goodwill
between two business people who were already conducting
business, to speak to Mr. Haines, he wanted to speak directly
to Mr. Gent. During that time he told me that Mr. Gent had
told him that the decision was Mr. Haines'.
Q. You see what Dr. Jung says about that, have you not?
A. I have not, actually.
Q. Do you want to just look at the opening paragraphs and see
A. Which one?
Q. I have put it away. I think it is at the top of that page in
the opening paragraphs. He does not accept that.
Particularly paragraph 8.
A. I see what he says. I don't agree with him.
Q. Just two more subjects. First of all, Mr. Peter Sutherland,
who you got to write in; do you remember?
Q. Why did you ask Mr. Sutherland to write?
A. Mr. Sutherland is a friend of mine from my home town. We are
similar ages. He is a very successful man and he is the
Chairman of Goldman Sachs and he did the buyout and he did a
lot of the negotiation on behalf of Vodafone with the
Mannesman deal; and he was a friend.
Q. And so you wanted him to write in, is that right, to put a
good word in?
A. No, what had happened, I think this late on, if I recall
rightly, and Peter Sutherland and I, we spoke about it and I
said, "Look, I'm not sure exactly, I have an agreement, I
have a deal, but I hear all these stories about Ferrari."
Q. I am sorry, could you repeat that? I misheard you?
A. I said I had a deal going back some time and there were all
these stories about Ferrari.
Q. Yes. So?
A. So I asked him to make contact.
Q. When was that?
A. May time? June/May, I am not sure.
Q. To make contact with whom?
A. Well, his contacts inside Vodafone. I presume he would have
been at the highest level, so he would have been talking to
Q. Just so I understand, you told him what, you had an
A. I told him I had an agreement.
Q. Could you look at C6, please, tab 11. Did you write that
A. I will tell you in a second. (Pause for reading) Yes.
Q. There is nothing in there about an agreement, is there?
Q. There is nothing in that letter about an agreement, is there?
A. I would speak to .... I had already spoken to him before
this, because this was a short note to thank him for his help
and assistance. To my knowledge, I went to his office.
Q. This is an odd letter to write if you have already spoken to
him and said you have an agreement, is it not?
A. I am sorry?
Q. It is an odd letter to write if you have already spoken to
A. "Just a short note to thank you for your help and
Q. "It is inevitable that we go to Ferrari in some form or
another. Extremely grateful for your support."
A. I think by that time the word was out. I just probably could
not believe it.
Q. It is an odd letter to write if you have already spoken to
him at some length and explained to him you have an
agreement, is it not?
A. I think not.
Q. Lastly, two matters. Do you remember you invited David
Haines and Mr. Harris to your yacht in Monaco?
A. Yes indeed.
Q. Did you record that conversation?
A. Record it?
A. No, I did not.
Q. One document I have not shown you which I should have done in
C9, which is part of Mr. Phillips' notebook, is at page 1931.
You dated this around 1st-2nd May. Certainly I had that
written on the top, but don't take that as reliable. It says
"Deutsche Post Title Sponsorship Proposal", term three years;
cost 160 million; additional benefits; team title; team logo;
share with Honda.
Q. Did you enter into discussions with Deutsche Post for three
year title sponsorship, $160 million?
A. I couldn't be sure. If you can give me some of the dates,
I'll be able to tell you.
Q. I have got a date of around 1st or 2nd May. I do not know
how I have derived that so can we just proceed on the basis
that it is about that time? Maybe I have done that simply by
an exercise of other documents in here. Around then, anyhow.
What is your answer to that?
A. I am sorry, I don't ----
Q. Around then. No, you are quite right. It is between 1st and
Q. So were you in discussions with Deutsche Post at that time
for possible title sponsorship?
A. I was continually in touch with Deutsche Post. I could not
say whether I was. I probably was.
Q. I just note at page 1935, the same time as you were in
discussions with Deutsche Post at about this time (this is a
document I have shown you), proceeding apace still with
Orange. Is that right?
Q. Proceeding apace with Orange as well. We see that. At the
top of the note: "Dennis O'Brien. Things have accelerated."
Q. That is Orange, isn't it? "Seeing Denise and the Chief
Executive Officer tomorrow morning at 8.30?
A. I would not think so.
Q. Who is Denise?
A. Denise is from Orange.
Q. And Dennis O'Brien?
A. Dennis O'Brien is a personal friend of mine from Ireland, who
Q. So Denise is Orange, Chief Executive Officer Orange:
"Tomorrow morning at 8.30."
A. I am really sorry, I do not know what that is. Dennis
O'Brien is a personal friend of mine from Ireland.
Q. What I was going to show you, having shown you that document
at 1931 from Deutsche Post, how far did you take your title
sponsorship discussions with Deutsche Post?
A. In 1991? I have no recollection. I need some help, please.
Q. I can't give you the help if the documents are not there.
What has happened to Deutsche Post; are they still sponsors
Q. They are not? Was Heinz Harald Frentzen your driver?
Q. In 2001?
Q. Was he the chosen driver of Deutsche Post?
Q. Was he a preferred driver for Deutsche Post?
A. In certain sectors absolutely not; in some sectors yes.
Q. Did you summarily dismiss him in July 2001?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Only a few days before the German Grand Prix?
A. That is correct.
Q. That produced, I suggest, disastrous publicity for you, did
A. It was not one of my better moves.
Q. It antagonized Deutsche Post, did it not?
A. No, I don't believe it did. I did it with their knowledge.
Q. You were sued by Mr. Frenzen?
A. I came to a settlement with Mr. Frenzen. I am not sure I was
sued by him, but I could be wrong.
Q. He issued proceedings, did he not?
A. We entered into a settlement more or less straight away.
Q. I can show you if you want?
A. I am not doubting you. I am sure you are right.
Q. And it finally led to Deutsche Post refusing to continue
A. No, absolutely untrue. The Deutsche Post was three years.
They got everything and more out of the value. They had
created a new brand, which was DHL, something that Jordan was
particularly proud about because it amounted to a huge new
opportunity for the globalisation of a brand called DHL and
to this moment the red on the yellow is their preferred
colour. They have actually come away from red and white to
go with red and yellow.
MR. ALDOUS: I said I would keep to time. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I am very pleased. Thank you.
MR. BOYLE: My Lord, I have no questions in re-examination.
MR. JUSTICE LANGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
(Adjourned until 10.30 on Monday morning)
© 1995-2005 Kaizar.Com, Inc.
. This service is provided under the Atlas F1 terms and conditions.
Please Contact Us for permission to republish this or any other material from Atlas F1.