The Candy brothers’ two-week case against Qatari Diar came to an end last week. Mr Justice Vos is expected to say either yes or no to Nick and Christian’s claim for an £81m fee on Chelsea Barracks in a few weeks’ time. What will the verdict be? I’ve no idea.
It is not possible to judge proceedings in Court 57 of the Royal Courts of Justice on the basis of four short visits. What sitting in the gallery for a few hours did, however, was leave the impression that both sides were hiding their real feelings.
Camp Qatar’s real feelings would be: “We would rather our oil and gas run dry than pay you brothers another £81m on top of a £37m fee for a now-aborted development which has caused the Emir so much embarrassment because you told the press of his chat with Prince Charles – which has nothing to do with anything.”
Camp Candy’s real feelings would be: “Stop wriggling. There is a signed contract with a £37m break fee plus another £81m when this – or any other – scheme got planning. And we don’t care who we embarrass. We want that cash now, not later, because Prince Charles obviously got the Emir to kill the scheme.”
Around these well-wrapped kernels of anger, both sides have layered a case costing millions. This was heard in a modern sixth-floor courtroom in front of Judge Vos, who exercised considerable powers of patience, for it sometimes took six attempts to get some sort of answer out of witnesses.
The interrogators were Joe Smouha, QC for the Qataris, a sharp, quick-minded inquisitor, and Lord Grabiner, QC for the Candys, a deceptively kindly uncle. Neither elicited an injudicious outburst.
Christian Candy did well to parry Smouha’s rapier thrusts. But the 35-year-old skirted around questions probing the conflict of interest that arose from acting as both disinterested planning adviser and provider of even-handed advice when he was an interested stakeholder.
Ganim bin Saad al-Saad did not do as well with kindly Lord Grabiner. The chief executive of Qatari Diar maintained that the decision to abandon Lord Rogers’ design in favour of a layout that was eventually given a seal of approval by the Prince’s Foundation was his idea, and his alone.
This defence was met with some incredulity. Lord Grabiner was too well bred to say: “Yeah, and my uncle is a Dutchman.” Instead, he said: “I am going to ask the judge at a later stage in the trial to reject your evidence as not being credible.”
This will come as bad news to enemies of the precocious Candy brothers, of which there are many. But the judge will stick to the facts, mined from thousands of e-mails over a period around this time last year when the Rogers scheme was junked.
The facts are horribly complex: but the Candys are more likely to get their £81m if the Emir interfered and less likely to do so if the decision was taken because Westminster council or London mayor Boris Johnson indicated that refusal was likely. But there will be no £81m if the Qataris can prove the brothers acted in bad faith and manoeuvred QD into withdrawing the application to get their money sooner.
You be the judge.
Former EG editor Peter Bill writes daily at estatesgazette.com/blogs/peter-bill and each Friday for the London Evening Standard
