Property tycoon Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been held responsible for the murder of a business rival by two hitmen, despite being cleared in the criminal courts.
The High Court today held that it was satisfied that van Hoogstraten had “recruited two highly dangerous thugs” to murder Mohammed Raja in order to halt a civil action that Raja was bringing against him.
Lightman J said: “Nothing less than murder would rid Mr van Hoogstraten of this thorn in his flesh. He clearly recruited the thugs to ‘break’ the thorn and resolve for good his problems with Mr Raja.”
The judge added that van Hoogstraten’s purpose in murdering Raja “had not been achieved because, contrary to his expectations, Mr Raja’s family have been as resilient as was Mr Raja in his lifetime in standing up to Mr van Hoogstraten”.
The court’s ruling is central to a £6m civil action being brought against the East Sussex-based landlord by Raja’s family.
Raja was in the process of suing van Hoogstraten in respect of a business deal when, in July 1999, he was stabbed and shot at his home in Sutton. The two hitmen, Robert Knapp and David Croke, are presently serving a life sentence for murder.
Van Hoogstraten served 11 months of a 10-year prison sentence for the manslaughter before his conviction was set aside on appeal for lack of evidence in 2003.
During a six-day civil hearing last month, he did not appear and was not represented. He is believed to be living in Zimbabwe, where he is a substantial landowner, although his business address remains the Courtlands Hotel, one of seven hotels that he owns in Brighton and Hove.
The court heard evidence that van Hoogstraten had previously admitted to the use of violence in the course of his business activities.
IN a 1988 television interview, he termed his tenants “scumbags”, and said that to obtain the increase in value of properties with vacant possession it was worth “sending someone round to bump the [tenant] off”.
He also claimed to have spat at a tenant who asserted her right to use a garden, and said that a landlord was entitled by any means to take back his property.
During an interview in October, he also said that if a tenant defaulted beyond the commencement of legal proceedings, “something else would happen”.
Lightman J said that he had reached his conclusion on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil law standard of proof, but also “if it were necessary, beyond reasonable doubt” the criminal law standard.
He ordered van Hoogstraten to pay £500,000 interim costs within 14 days.
The Raja family brought four civil claims that all relate to the same misappropriation claim that Raja had initiated before his death.
The family will return to court on 11 January 2006 for a procedural hearing, and the judge aims to conclude the case by the end of February.
The Raja family is also seeking an order for disclosure of van Hoogstraten’s assets, which it says have so far been detailed “in the vaguest terms”. It claims that he is the beneficial owner of, and controls, a number of companies, including Tombstone, all of which “appear to have a large property portfolio in this country”.
It may also seek to reimpose a freezing order, which was removed by agreement in November pending the outcome of the trial. Counsel Peter Irvin said in documents: “It seems likely that, in the light of the judgment, Mr van Hoogstraten will attempt to take further measures to put his assets further out of reach than they already are.”
Van Hoogstraten, who in the past has estimated his own wealth to exceed £100m, was said by the judge to have taken steps to “squirrel” his assets away.
Raja (on the estate of Raja) (No 6) v van Hoogstraten and others Chancery Division (Lightman J) 19 December 2005.
Andrew Mitchell QC and Peter Irvin (instructed by Healys) appeared for the claimants; the defendants did not appear and was not represented.
References: EGi Legal News 19/12/05
