Property developers win case brought by ex-associate Mark Holyoake but brand lies in tatters after series of lurid revelations on how they run their empire

Billionaire property developers the Candy brothers have won a high court battle after a judge dismissed all claims brought against them by a former friend for extortion, blackmail, intimidation and breach of data protection legislation.



The three-year case pitted Mark Holyoake, a businessman with a colourful past, against his former university housemate Nick Candy, and the latter’s brother, Christian.



“None of the protagonists emerge from this trial with great credit,” Mr Justice Nugee told a packed courtroom as he delivered the verdict. The brothers were cleared of all charges against them, but each of the parties “has been shown to have been willing to lie when they consider their commercial interests justify them doing so”.

In a trial which dominated newspaper headlines, a succession of former friends, employees and business partners filed into the high court in London to share lurid details of the Candys’ private lives and business dealings.

Starting with a loan from their grandmother, the brothers made their fortune by riding the wave of London’s luxury apartments boom. Their flagship One Hyde Park development near Harrods in Knightsbridge attracted Middle Eastern royalty, petro-billionaires and some of the highest prices ever paid for London real estate.

Holyoake had sought £132m in damages, after accusing the brothers of using threats to force him to pay £37m in interest and penalties on a £12m loan provided by Christian Candy’s property business to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a London mansion block.



The Candys described Holyoake as a liar and a fraudster, saying he put none of his own money into the project, and overstated his net worth in order to deceive them.

The judge agreed, saying in his verdict that Holyoake did not have the £120m fortune he had claimed in a statement of assets, and that as a result the lenders were entitled to treat the loan as in default.

Nugee found that Christian Candy, who sat beside his brother in the public gallery to hear the verdict, had threatened to “take a wrecking ball” to Holyoake’s assets, but that the threat was not unlawful.

In a statement, Holyoake said: “We, the claimants, are in a state of disbelief that Mr Justice Nugee has not ruled in our favour and intend to seek an appeal with immediate urgency.

“Anyone reading today’s judgment will see that there are currently no winners here. I stand by our allegations and maintain that my own actions were deployed in self protection and wholly justified in the circumstances.”

After the hearing, the Candys said: “It has taken a great deal of time and effort to win this case and it has caused unwarranted damage to our personal and business lives. The claim should never have been brought. We look forward to time more positively spent with our families and in our respective businesses.”

The brothers are now seeking more than £11m in costs from Holyoake, who was ordered to pay half the sum in January.

Known as the “brothers bling”, the Candys’ rapid rise propelled them into a world of celebrity and obscene wealth. Nick wed the actor and singer Holly Valance at a star studded ceremony in Los Angeles five years ago, while Christian is married to the socialite Lady Emily Crompton.

Witnesses at the nine-week trial set out the Candys’ connections to household names, from the pop star Katy Perry, who was paid £1.2m to sing at Nick’s wedding, to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who were among the guests.

Candy brothers: ‘One day they were likely lads, then they were everywhere’ Read more

Alongside the details of their celebrity friends, private jet and Candyscape yachts, the trial revealed a darker side to the brothers and their associates.

There was mention of the murdered Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, who worked for an investigations firm whose director was a key Candy adviser.

The brothers were accused of using violent language with their staff. A witness described how assistants were regularly reduced to tears, and claimed one employee had been fired “on the spot” after disclosing he had a serious illness.

Holyoake claimed Nick Candy had warned his outstanding loan could be sold to Russian debt collectors, and that Christian had told him to “think about your pregnant wife”. Emma Holyoake told the court how she had turned the couple’s Ibiza home into a fortress, installing CCTV cameras and hiring security guards.



Nugee found that there had been no physical threat made to Emma Holyoake, although Christian Candy had made “an ill-judged and insensitive remark about her”. The judge dismissed the case, saying there was “no duress, undue influence, intimidation or unlawful interference with economic interests” and no breach of the Data Protection Act.



Whatever the ruling, the Candy brand has been dented. “Even if you find us completely innocent,” Nick told the judge during the case, “the rest of our lives there is going to be a slight smell.”

Holyoake approached the brothers in July 2011, seeking money at short notice in order to complete the purchase of a mansion block in Grosvenor Gardens, central London. Overnight, he secured £12m from CPC Group, the Guernsey-based property business run by Christian Candy. He planned to convert the building from offices to luxury flats.

What followed, claimed Holyoake, was a campaign of threats, abuse and intimidation directed at himself and his wife. Under pressure, Holyoake claimed to have entered into a series of further loan agreements which ultimately led to his repaying the original sum plus a further £37m. In order to fund the interest, he said he was forced to sell Grosvenor Gardens. His plans to redevelop the building were abandoned, and as a result he said he missed out on the profits this would have generated.

The first serious threats of legal action began in December 2014, and the case reached the high court last year with an ultimately unsuccessful attempt by Holyoake to secure a worlwide freeze on any sales of assets belonging to the Candys, who have declared a portfolio worth £600m.

The process has dented not only Holyoake’s pockets but his own standing.

The brothers cast doubt over his integrity, reminding the court that he had been investigated, (though never charged) by the Serious Fraud Office over the 2010 collapse of his fish importing business British Seafood. In a case that was eventually settled out of court, the blue chip investment firm 3i sued him for fraud, alleging that under Holyoake’s management the company invented sales to inflate its size.

The Candys’ troubles may not be over. The most serious allegations mounted against them by Holyoake concerned not just their alleged treatment of him, but the creation of an allegedly artificial business structure designed, according to witnesses, to enable them to evade millions in tax. They vehemently deny the claims.



• Follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk, or sign up to the daily Business Today email here.