The case between Stephen Harding-Smith and AMA Group last week for wrongful dismal has drawn to a close.
The legal suit originated from Stephen Harding-Smith alleged he was wrongfully dismissed from AMA Group saying that he was subject to allegations but had “not been provided with the opportunity to participate in any investigation”. AMA Group, in a defence and counterclaim, maintained Harding-Smith was dismissed for “serious misconduct”. He had facilitated the “unauthorised purchase of three luxury motor vehicles” worth $256,000 for former AMA Group CEO Andy Hopkins and his family using AMA Group funds, it alleged. The invoices had been “amended” on Harding-Smith’s instructions to be paid by AMA Group rather than Hopkins, the company claimed. It alleged Harding-Smith and Hopkins were close business associates. Hopkins had previously claimed that “It was part of my remuneration package that included a large annual car allowance,” in an interview with the Financial Review back in 2021.
In the court session on 23 May Harding-Smith was cross examined by AMA Group's barrister Nick Furlan on the purchase of the cars for Hopkins.
Below is an account of the court hearings in which Harding-Smith admitted that he was acting improperly when he purchased a Range Rover for Hopkins’ wife.
Harding-Smith said in evidence that he did not know who the cars were for. Furlan directed him to an email which read "Hi Stephen. As per our discussion yesterday, an overview and a copy of Andy’s vehicle insurance policies for your convenience and records.”
The barrister referred to the registration 1FH and asked if Hopkins’ daughter’s name began with F. Harding-Smith said that he didn’t know Mr Hopkins’ family exactly. He then said he believed Hopkins has a daughter. Furlan then asked about a vehicle with the number plate 1EH and Harding-Smith acknowledged that he knew Hopkins has a son called Edward. When asked if he knew the cars that he had purchased were being used for the Hopkins children he said that he didn’t recall. He also didn’t recall that the Land Rover Discovery that was purchased in July 2018 for $150,000 was for Hopkins’ wife Rachel saying he would not have turned his mind to what the vehicle was used for.
Harding-Smith then went on to say that when Hopkins asked him to make the purchases he wasn’t under any impression that he was restricted on what he was able to use those vehicles for, citing that the car allowance was for his benefit. When the question was rephrased Harding-Smith admitted that he knew the car was for Hopkins’ wife.
He also admitted that he paid Hopkins his $100,000 car benefit on 8 June 2018 and then that a few weeks later he caused the company to pay $150,910 to buy Ms Hopkins a car and that he knew this to exceed the car allowance stated.
The barrister then put it to Harding-Smith that when he caused a payment to be made for Mr Hopkins for his wife’s car that should not have been a payment that ought to have been made by the company.
When asked if he admitted to acting improperly, Harding-Smith said that he was following reasonable directions from Hopkins and that he didn’t believe it was improper. The barrister then said that if Hopkins wasn’t entitled to the money and Harding-Smith knew that, then how could it not have been improper.
When the judge stepped he put it to Harding-Smith that that he should have checked to see if the payment was authorised and Harding-Smith admitted that he should have. The judge then asked that if he didn’t check if it was authorised was he willing to admit that he acted improperly to which he replied yes and admitted that at the time he processed the car payment he knew he was acting improperly.
The judge asked Mr Harding-Smith to leave the courtroom at that time. Harding-Smith subsequently abandoned his claims, and admitted liability for the repayment of an outstanding loan to AMA Group. The case against Andy Hopkins still continues.