ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

A leading designer locked in a £67 million war over the will of Britain’s top female architect claims he was banned from speaking at her memorial service.

Patrik Schumacher, 57, is at loggerheads with Dame Zaha Hadid’s friends over control of her estate, claiming he is the victim of “unjustified hostility”.

However, the fellow trustees of the estate — niece Rana Hadid, 55, artist Brian Clarke, 63, and Conservative peer Lord Palumbo, 73 — insist that Mr Schumacher is the one who should be removed as executor of the will.

The four were put in charge of the £67 million legacy of Dame Zaha, whose designs included venues for the 2012 Olympics and the 2020 World Cup, when she died of a heart attack in 2016.

Mr Schumacher, her friend and business partner, was also left in control of her architectural trading company Zaha Hadid Ltd, but claims his ability to run the firm is being hampered after his fellow trustees ordered millions of pounds to be transferred out of the business to another part of the estate.

In legal papers put before the High Court, Mr Schumacher says he was blocked from speaking at Dame Zaha’s memorial service at St Paul’s Cathedral while the other trustees “all spoke at this service”.

His lawyer, Richard Wilson QC, said the other trustees “have improperly allowed their personal animosity towards Mr Schumacher to influence their decision-making”.

Elspeth Talbot Rice QC, for Rana Hadid, Mr Clarke and Lord Palumbo, denied the allegation, saying they “have not acted with any hostility or animosity towards Mr Schumacher”.

“The defendants did not refuse to allow Mr Schumacher to speak at Dame Zaha’s memorial service. The decision as to who would speak was not made by the defendants, but by Dame Zaha’s family,” she said.

She added that Mr Schumacher had been offered the chance to deliver a pre-arranged reading, but declined “as he wanted to present a tribute rather than a reading”.

Mr Schumacher believes a controversial speech he made in Berlin in November contributed to the alleged animosity towards him.

In the lecture, he said social housing should be abolished, only the “economically potent” elite should be allowed to live in city centres, and that 80 per cent of Hyde Park should be built over.

He came under fire for the comments, and Mr Clarke, Ms Hadid and Lord Palumbo sought to distance the estate and the Zaha Hadid “brand” from Mr Schumacher, saying it did not accord with her views and had damaged her legacy.

Mr Schumacher wants the three replaced as executors with “independent solicitors”.

In the will, Dame Zaha left cash gifts including £500,000 to Rana and another £500,000 to Mr Schumacher.

The majority of her wealth went into a trust, and she had written that she wanted Mr Schumacher to assume “control” of Zaha Hadid Ltd and to “benefit from at least 50 per cent” of its income and capital.

A full High Court trial will be held later this year.