Judge throws out ‘hopeless’ legal claim over Reform treasurer Nick Candy’s Knightsbridge penthouse
A High Court judge has rejected a legal claim by a man who claimed to represent a Saudi prince in the sale of Reform England treasurer Nick Candy’s penthouse.
Judge Neil Cadwallader said Michael Brown was taking “desperate” legal action against Mr Candy and the group of eight others, including One Hyde Park, the Knightsbridge complex that contains Mr Candy’s penthouse.
Mr Brown, who represented himself at Tuesday’s hearing but abandoned it citing medical reasons, is seeking £659 million over the fraudulent valuation of the penthouse and alleged breach of contract, the judge said.
“It is extremely difficult to understand the nature of the claim from the brief details given in the claim form and the plaintiff’s witness statements, but expanding these details a little does not make the matter clearer,” the judge said.
He added: “These claims were not only hopeless, they were misunderstood, unfounded and doomed to fail.”
David Lascelles, for Mr Candy, said in written submissions that Mr Brown contacted Mr Candy’s representatives in 2016 and said he was interested in buying a Saudi prince’s penthouse at One Hyde Park.
In July that year, Mr Candy handed over a letter from estate agency Savills with an estimated value of £160 million, indicating that a full valuation could be given if negotiations progressed.
Two days later, Mr. Lascelles said, Mr. Brown sent an email saying he had been racially abused at the hotel next door to the Mandarin Oriental One Hyde Park.
He said he could not recommend the sale of the penthouse, meaning the sale was stopped.
In 2018, Mr Brown launched a lawsuit against Mr Candy, his company Candy Capital and One Hyde Park in the High Court in an attempt to claim £1.5 billion, but the case was dismissed by a judge.
Mr Lascelles said: “The claimant is now seeking to revive allegations that have already been found to be completely false.”
He continued: “It is a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is attempting to use these proceedings to exert pressure and create public opinion with blasphemous allegations rather than to pursue any properly defensible legal claims.
“He wasted significant public resources, including the time of numerous judges, administrators and staff at HM Courts and Tribunals Service, against whom he made serious and completely unfounded criminal allegations.”
Mr Brown became bankrupt following the previous case because he was unable to pay legal fees.
At Tuesday’s hearing, he said he went bankrupt as a result of fraud.
“Any reasonable person would say this is a kangaroo court. That’s the basic principle, I have the right to a fair trial and a completely fair fight.”
“How can this be a fair fight if I’m outnumbered?”
He also asked the court to allow his lawsuit to proceed because he “hopes to gain Elon Musk’s support.”
He added that in such a case the case would be “all over”.
Mr. Brown also claimed that Mr. Candy’s lawyers “cheated” by confirming that a witness’s testimony was true when they knew it was false.
He said this amounted to contempt of court but this was rejected by Judge Cadwallader, who described Mr Brown’s claims as “inconsistent”.
The judge said: “Mr Brown tried to suggest that the lawyers acting for the defendants were intelligent people and were accustomed to finding out what the claim meant, but that is not an answer.
“They have the right not to have to guess.”
He continued: “Accordingly, I will decide to reject the plaintiff’s request on all these grounds against all the defendants.”
Judge Cadwallader also ordered Mr Brown to obtain a civil restraining order and pay costs to prevent him from taking further legal action over the same matter.
