Judge blocks last-minute changes in upcoming Abu Dhabi royals clash
A judge has blocked lawyers acting for a group of companies ultimately owned by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al from altering aspects of their case against UK asset manager Lancer.
Lancer Property Asset Management managed the sheik’s £5bn portfolio of central London properties for 16 years until they were replaced in 2017. The separation became acrimonious, with the directors of Lancer bringing a case in the employment tribunal.
The legal entities that own the estate are suing Lancer for “tens of millions of pounds” in damages, alleging dishonesty and fraud. Lancer denies this and is countersuing for £11m in unpaid fees.
A judge has blocked lawyers acting for a group of companies ultimately owned by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al from altering aspects of their case against UK asset manager Lancer.
Lancer Property Asset Management managed the sheik’s £5bn portfolio of central London properties for 16 years until they were replaced in 2017. The separation became acrimonious, with the directors of Lancer bringing a case in the employment tribunal.
The legal entities that own the estate are suing Lancer for “tens of millions of pounds” in damages, alleging dishonesty and fraud. Lancer denies this and is countersuing for £11m in unpaid fees.
The case is due to be heard in June, and is set to last more than three weeks.
In a pre-trial hearing today, lawyers for the estate asked judge Robin Vos for permission to alter their case in relation to two documents that may, according to Lancer’s lawyers, be important at trial.
The documents are said to have been signed by the sheikh, which Lancer says proves he knew about and authorised their activities.
Lawyers for the estate now say the documents might not be authentic and they want to change their pleadings to reflect that.
The judge ruled this afternoon that the changes should not be allowed. “It is now two and a half months before the trial,” he said.
The estate could have questioned the authority of one of the documents much sooner and has already admitted the authenticity of the other, he said.
“This application to amend should be refused,” he said.
Picture © Shutterstock