A BUSINESSMAN has been accused of “shutting his eyes” to his responsibilities as a director when he set up an executive pension scheme to boost his own benefits, London’s high court heard.

Michael Woodford, from Thorpe Bay, is facing a £55 million lawsuit from KeyMed, a UK subsidiary of camera maker, Olympus.

Mr Woodford worked with Southend-based KeyMed before working his way up through the ranks to become president and then chief executive of its parent company Olympus in Japan.

However, just two weeks into the job he helped expose one of the biggest and longest-running losshiding arrangements in Japanese corporate history, which became the subject of BBC Four, Storyville documentary, 1.7 Billion Dollar Fraud: Full Exposure.

The lawsuit centres on KeyMed’s claims that Mr Woodford and a former colleague, Paul Hillman, used their positions to protect and improve their own retirement benefits.

Allegedly, the defendants received the go-ahead to establish their own pension scheme in 2005, without properly advising the board on costs.

Both men deny the allegations, with Mr Woodford saying the lawsuit over his £64m pension is motivated by “a desire for revenge”.

John Wardell, QC for KeyMed, suggested during cross examination that the sole function of setting up the separate scheme was to secure Mr Woodford’s pension.

He was also challenged over KeyMed’s support for the road safety charity of which he was a trustee, with the claimant’s QC saying the company had spent “simply enormous sums” on the charity.

Mr Woodford defended the spending on “a cause which was extremely successful in enhancing our reputation” as a company.

It was alleged that Mr Woodford had supported the writing of “threatening letters” to organisations that failed to act on road safety and had tried to pass himself off as an expert in trauma medicine.

Mr Woodford said he had spent considerable time in operating theatres and with doctors while setting up a new medical equipment division at Olympus and stood by the description of himself.

The claimant’s lawyer also referred to occasions on which Mr Woodford had lost his temper with subordinates and written them angry letters.

“I completely disagree with that,” replied Mr Woodford.

The trial continues.