Ritz 'sold for half price after £1.3bn offer secretly recorded in family dispute'

A twin is suing his brother's children claiming they bugged his hotel
AFP via Getty Images
Ellena Cruse6 May 2020
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

London's iconic Ritz hotel was sold for "half the market price" after conversations were secretly recorded by the nephews of the billionaire co-owner and a Saudi investor offering £1.3bn, the High Court has heard.

Businessman Sir Frederick Barclay, 85, and his daughter Amanda are suing three of his twin brother Sir David’s sons – Alistair, Aidan and Howard – and Aidan’s son Andrew over 94 hours of recordings made over several months.

The High Court has previously heard that the “elaborate system of covert recording” only came to light in January when Alistair was filmed on CCTV “handling the bug" in the hotel's conservatory.

At a further preliminary hearing, conducted remotely on Wednesday, Mr Justice Warby heard that the recording of Sir Frederick and Amanda Barclay’s conversations was “commercial espionage on a vast scale”.

Sir David Barclay (left) has launched legal action against the children of his twin brother, Sir Frederick (right)
PA

Hefin Rees QC, representing Sir Frederick and Ms Barclay, said in written submissions that the recordings “captured over 1,000 separate conversations over a period of months”, including conversations with the claimants’ lawyers as well as “bankers and business people”.

He added that “a separate Wi-Fi bug was also used”, which was supplied by private investigations firm Quest, which “invoiced for 405 hours of their time to listen and transcribe the recordings”, with transcripts later “shared amongst the defendants and others”.

The court was told that Sir Frederick, who had “placed great trust” in Aidan and Howard Barclay to run his and his brother’s business empire, is “now left to contemplate his nephews’ betrayal”.

Sir Frederick and Ms Barclay are bringing a legal action alleging misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of data protection laws, against their four relatives and Philip Peters, who “holds a board position” in the Barclay group of businesses.

The London Ritz, a famous luxury hotel, was sold to an investor in Qatar by the wealthy Barclay brothers
AFP via Getty Images

Mr Rees submitted that material previously disclosed to his clients “reveals beyond doubt that the defendants derived significant financial and commercial advantage from the unlawful use of the recordings”.

He added that they were made at a time “when there were significant ongoing commercial disputes between the parties concerning, among other things, the sale of the Ritz hotel, the financial performance and management of the group, (Amanda Barclay’s) continuing financial interests in the group, and Sir Frederick’s divorce proceedings”.

In March, Sir Frederick said he had received competing bids to buy the Ritz for more than £1 billion, adding that any move to sell the establishment for “below the proper value would give rise to further litigation”.

Multi-millionaires Sir David Barclay (left) and his twin brother Sir Frederick after receiving their knighthoods
PA

The Ritz has since been sold to an unnamed Qatari investor for an unknown price, reported to be around £750 million.

Mr Rees told the court the defendants heard “Sir Frederick’s conversations with Sidra Capital, which at the time had made an initial offer of some £1.3 billion for the acquisition of the Ritz hotel”.

He added: “Despite this, the defendants sold the Ritz hotel to another buyer from Qatar at a price that appears to be for half the market price. One is left to speculate why.”

Mr Rees argued that the recordings allowed the defendants “to anticipate the claimants’ every move in advance, plan their business strategy around that, including knowing what legal advice the claimants were seeking and getting at this crucial time when their business and personal relationships had broken down, and the respective interests of the claimants and the defendants were in conflict”.

At the hearing in February, Heather Rogers QC, representing all five defendants, argued there was “a lot of information that would have been in the possession of my clients… which they have got completely free of the recordings”.

She added that her clients had “ample opportunity” to “spread it about before an injunction” was granted, but there was “no evidence of dissemination”.

Mr Justice Warby will continue to hear submissions on Wednesday afternoon.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in