A key EDS witness in the £709m legal case won by BSkyB lied in giving evidence, says a judgment issued last night.
Joe Galloway, former managing director of EDS's CRM practice, who was closely involved in EDS's bid to supply a CRM system to BSkyB, claimed in evidence that he held an MBA from Concordia College, St Johns (1995-1996).
But the degree was not genuine and was not obtained by study in 1995 to 1996, Sir Vivian Ramsey says in a judgment issued last night.
As soon as EDS discovered Joe Galloway lied in court it dismissed him, the judgment reveals.
One of BSkyB's QCs, Mark Howard, obtained a degree for his dog Lulu to prove the point that degrees from Condordia College could be gained with ease.
"Without any difficulty the dog was able to obtain a degree certificate and transcripts which were in identical form to those later produced by Joe Galloway but with marks which, in fact, were better than those given to him," the judgment says.
The president and vice-chancellor of Concordia College and University provided a recommendation letter to both the dog and Galloway.
"Whilst the underlying lie was that Joe Galloway had quite evidently obtained a fake degree from the Concordia College website, he then gave evidence which was palpably dishonest both in answer to questions in cross-examination and also in answer to questions from the court," the judge says.
The website for Concordia College says that an accredited degree can be obtained in 24 hours.
Galloway, who could not be contacted for comment, was managing director of EDS's CRM practice, reporting to the UK head of e.solutions who, in turn, reported to the head of e.solutions in the supplier's EMEA region.
The judgment says that Galloway was the mastermind for EDS's response to the invitation to tender which was presented to Sky on 1 June 2000. He was closely involved in all subsequent developments.
The tender led to the appointment of EDS as the supplier of BSkyB's CRM system. After the failure of the project, BSkyB sued EDS, claiming £709m.
The judge accepted BSkyB's claim that EDS's bid team made fraudulent misrepresentations to win the business to supply and install CRM system to run BSkyB's new contact centre.
Damages have yet to be determined but Herbert Smith, BSkyB's lawyers, say that HP, which now owns EDS, will have to pay a minimum of £200m.
During the trial Joe Galloway was one of 27 EDS witnesses. He was among 60 members of the original EDS bid team. EDS does not believe that one individual could influence the outcome of the bid.
EDS told the the court that Galloway's evidence on relevant issues was credible. He did not try to gloss the facts in favour of EDS.
"EDS accept that, in the light of his evidence concerning his MBA degree, Joe Galloway's evidence on other matters should be treated with caution," the judge said.
Purjured evidence: what the judge said:
"This is not a case where there was merely a lie as to the MBA degree. Such a lie might have had a limited effect on credibility and might be explicable on the basis that Joe Galloway wished to bolster his academic qualifications and was embarrassed about the way he did it
"However his dishonesty did not stop at that.
"He then gave perjured evidence about the MBA, including repeatedly giving dishonest answers about the circumstances in which he gained his MBA and worked in St John on a project for Coca-Cola.
"In doing so, he gave his evidence with the same confident manner which he adopted in relation to his other evidence about his involvement in the Sky CRM Project.
"He therefore demonstrated an astounding ability to be dishonest, making up a whole story about being in St John, working there and studying at Concordia College.
"EDS properly distance themselves from his evidence and realistically accept that his evidence should be treated with caution.
"In my judgment, Joe Galloway's credibility was completely destroyed by his perjured evidence over a prolonged period.
"It is simply not possible to distinguish between evidence which he gave on this aspect and on other aspects of the case.
"My general approach to his evidence has therefore to be that I cannot rely on the truth of his evidence unless it is supported by other evidence or there is some other reason to accept it, such as it being inherently liable to be true.
"Having observed him over the period he gave his evidence and heard his answers to questions put in cross-examination and by me, which have been shown to be dishonest, I also consider that this reflects upon his propensity to be dishonest whenever he sees it in his interest, in his business dealings.
"Whilst, of course, this does not prove that Joe Galloway made dishonest representations, it is a significant factor which I have to take into account in assessing whether he was dishonest in his dealings with Sky."
In his 468-page judgment, Sir Vivian Ramsey did accept some of Galloway's evidence.