A Dutch technology entrepreneur has been declared bankrupt by a London court following an unpaid loan dispute, months after losing a separate multi-million-pound legal battle involving a company owned by Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy.

Robert Bonnier was declared bankrupt at the Insolvency and Companies Court in London on Tuesday.

The ruling followed a petition brought by technology investment firm All Active Asset Capital.

The court was told that Mr Bonnier owed the company around £1.5million from an unpaid loan.

The bankruptcy order is separate from earlier High Court proceedings in which Mr Bonnier and his company Aaqua BV were ordered to pay more than £4.6million in damages.

That judgment followed a legal dispute with Candy Ventures Sarl, a company linked to Mr Candy’s business interests.

In November, the High Court found in favour of Candy Ventures Sarl after it sued Mr Bonnier over claims connected to investment in his technology venture.

The damages award totalled £4,623,919 – plus interest.

Tuesday’s bankruptcy hearing focused solely on the unpaid loan owed to All Active Asset Capital.

Barrister Tina Kyriakides, representing the investment firm, told the court that the debt arose from a loan extended to Mr Bonnier.

She said the businessman had failed to repay the sum despite a court order requiring him to do so.

All Active Asset Capital filed a bankruptcy petition against Mr Bonnier in 2023 after repayment was not made.

Mr Bonnier did not attend Tuesday’s hearing.

He was not represented by legal counsel in court.

Judge Clive Jones said Mr Bonnier had made allegations of “deliberate collusion” between All Active Asset Capital and Candy Ventures Sarl.

The judge rejected the allegation.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Britain’s youngest and brightest flee UK as middle-earners taxed out
• DWP benefit fraudster fined £200 after falsely claiming Universal Credit
• Universal theme park to open in Britain providing £50bn investment after planning permission granted

Judge Jones said he “cannot see how on earth” the earlier litigation involving Candy Ventures Sarl was relevant to the bankruptcy proceedings.

He added there was “absolutely nothing specific” to support claims of collusion.

The judge said there was “no indication” that Mr Bonnier intended or was able to repay the money owed.

He granted the bankruptcy order as a result.

Judge Jones said there were no grounds to delay or dismiss the petition.

The ruling formally separated the unpaid loan case from the earlier High Court dispute.

The earlier case centred on allegations made against Mr Bonnier in relation to investment secured for his company Aaqua BV.

Lawyers for Candy Ventures Sarl told the High Court that Mr Bonnier had “lied” to “deceive” the firm into investing in his business.

The court heard that Candy Ventures Sarl invested approximately €7.5 million, equivalent to around £6.5million, into Aaqua BV.

The investment followed claims that Apple and luxury goods group LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton were prepared to invest one billion US dollars in the venture.

The High Court found those claims to be false.

The judge in that case ruled that Mr Bonnier had knowingly made misrepresentations to induce the investment.

As part of the deal, Candy Ventures Sarl exchanged shares in podcasting company Audioboom for shares in Aaqua BV.

The court was told those shares later proved to be worthless.

Mr Justice Bright concluded that Mr Bonnier had acted dishonestly.

He awarded damages to Candy Ventures Sarl following the November judgment.

During that trial, Mr Bonnier represented himself.

In written submissions, he accepted that he had promoted his business plans enthusiastically.

He wrote that he had “occasionally perhaps gone too far” when presenting his aspirations for Aaqua.

The businessman also chose to represent himself during the High Court proceedings.

His absence from Tuesday’s bankruptcy hearing followed what the court described as limited engagement with the legal process.

The bankruptcy order now places Mr Bonnier formally into insolvency under UK law.

The decision means he faces both the outstanding damages award from the High Court and the consequences of the unpaid loan ruling.

The court made no finding on whether the High Court damages have been settled.

The judge confined his decision solely to the debt owed to All Active Asset Capital.