One of the UK’s highest-profile businessmen will not face punishment despite having breached a court order, a judge has said.
Sir Frederick Barclay, whose interests have included the Telegraph Media Group and the Ritz hotel in London, was found in contempt of court over his failure to promptly hand over money the high court said he owed.
The ruling was part of a long-running legal battle between him and his ex-wife Hiroko Barclay.
Sir Jonathan Cohen, who has been overseeing the case for more than two years in the family division of the high court in London, ruled in July 2022 that Barclay was in contempt as a result of having failed to pay about £245,000 he owed his ex-wife for legal fees and maintenance. The 88-year-old subsequently paid that money.
Taking that fact into account – as well as Barclay’s age – the judge said: “I am left in the position of having no alternative but to make no further order by way of punishment.”
In May 2021, Barclay was ordered to hand his ex-wife lump sums totalling £100m after the breakdown of their 34-year marriage. The judge has been told Barclay has yet to pay.
He has been told repeatedly that a settlement in relation to the £100m was pending. The judge has been given a figure of about £10m in relation to that settlement, but said on Thursday he had been told a lender providing the money had withdrawn. The judge said Barclay still owed his ex-wife £100m.
Last year, Lady Barclay argued her ex-husband was in contempt because he had breached court orders to pay her the money. But the judge ruled he was not in contempt for not paying the sum – or a first instalment of £50m – because he said Lady Barclay had not proved her former spouse had the means to pay either amount.
However, the judge ruled Barclay was in contempt for not paying the money he owed for legal fees and maintenance because it was concluded he had the means to pay those lesser sums.
Last month, the judge described a recent episode in the legal battle as a “charade”. An adviser to Barclay told him in two hearings around that time that people were still waiting for money to arrive in an account.
But, days later, the barrister leading Lady Barclay’s legal team told the judge the money had still not arrived. Cohen called it a “charade” and Stewart Leech KC replied: “That is our impression as well.”
Max Turnell, the barrister representing Barclay, said money was being borrowed.
“Sir Fredrick is borrowing money from another loaning party,” he told the judge. “That loaning party has borrowed the money from a lender.” He added: “It is not something that is in our control.”
Cohen adjourned hearings on the basis that a settlement was in the offing. “I have been told on four or five occasions that this case needs to be adjourned because there is a deal that is about to come to fruition,” said the judge. “At the moment I don’t have any certainty that it is ever going to happen.
“I have been told on countless occasions over the last few months that this is all happening … and every time it doesn’t happen.”
