Candy brothers refute ‘incoherent’ and ‘scurrilous’ £1.5bn lawsuit

Property developers Nick and Christian Candy have strongly refuted a lawsuit brought against them that makes accusations of “malicious sabotage” and “imbecilic behaviour” that allegedly led to a property transaction with the House of Saud falling though. The lawsuit is being brought by Michael Antony Brown, who claims to be a former business associate of the brothers. On his claim form, Brown alleges he took part in a business deal to sell Nick Candy’s penthouse in One Hyde Park, SW1, for “£175,000,000.00 ml”. According to the claim form, the deal involved a member of the Saudi royal family, but it fell through because of actions by “Mr Candy and his associates” that were “insulting, derogatory and undermining”. The actions “can be described as ‘malicious sabotage’ which has caused great loss of opportunity and ‘substantial financial loss’, along with unwarranted damages for all involved.” In their response, lawyers for the brothers refuted the claims. The defence filed by corporate defendant One Hyde Park branded the allegations “unreasonably vague, incoherent and embarrassing for want of particularity”. Lawyers said the claim “consists in large part of irrelevant and/poor incomprehensible factual assertions, is inadequately particularised and is impossible to plead properly”. They added the reasons behind the sum claimed were “entirely unclear”. The defence filed on behalf of Christian Candy stated that the lawsuit was “hopeless”, while the defence filed on behalf of Nick Candy states he had no dealings with Brown and none of the alleged facts “can support a plea of illegality against any defendants.” It also states that “the claim form and particulars of the claim are wholly unclear as to what complaints are made against whom and on what basis.” They were “unreasonably vague, incoherent, vexations, scurrilous and obviously ill-founded”, it said. Nick Candy’s defence sheds more light on the possible history of the case. It states that in July 2016, Brown approached Candy and said he “might be able to introduce” a member of the Saudi royal family as a “potential purchaser” of the penthouse. The deal came to nothing but Brown later contacted Candy to say “he had experienced racism at the Mandarin Oriental hotel”, which is connected to One Hyde Park, and as a result he had advised the Saudi royal against buying the penthouse. According to the filing, Brown escalated his complaint against the hotel, saying he would get “millions”, citing a breach of a non-disclosure agreement he had previously signed with a Candy company. Nick Candy’s defence “for the avoidance of doubt” refuted the breach and all the allegations, and pointed out there was no such thing as “malicious sabotage” and none of the facts alleged “amount to any cause of action under English law”. The defendants say they will apply to have the claim struck out. According to his claim form, Brown is not only seeking £1.5bn, he also wants £10 to pay for the court fee.