Judge throws out ‘hopeless’ legal claim over Reform treasurer’s penthouse

Judge throws out ‘hopeless’ legal claim over Reform treasurer’s penthouse

Danny Halpin

Tue, December 16, 2025 at 6:06 PM UTC

3 min read

A High Court judge has thrown out a legal claim from a man who claimed to represent a Saudi prince in an alleged sale of Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy’s penthouse.

Michael Brown brought “hopeless” legal action against Mr Candy and a group of eight others, including One Hyde Park, the Knightsbridge complex that contains Mr Candy’s penthouse, Judge Neil Cadwallader said.

Mr Brown, who represented himself at a Tuesday hearing but left halfway through citing medical reasons, appeared to be seeking £659 million over an alleged fraudulent valuation of the penthouse and an alleged breach of contract, the judge said.

“The nature of the claim is extremely difficult to discern from the brief details given in the claim form and the witness evidence of the claimant, while expanding these details somewhat does not make the matter any clearer,” the judge said.

He added: “Not only were these claims hopeless, they were misconceived and baseless and bound to fail.”

David Lascelles, for Mr Candy, said in written submissions that Mr Brown had contacted Mr Candy’s representatives in 2016, saying that a Saudi prince was interested in buying the penthouse at One Hyde Park.

Nick Candy owns a penthouse at One Hyde Park, pictured (Google Maps)

In July of that year, Mr Candy provided a letter from the estate agency Savills which showed an estimated value of £160 million and that a full valuation could be given if negotiations progressed.

Mr Lascelles said that two days later, however, Mr Brown sent an email saying he had received racist abuse at the hotel next to One Hyde Park, the Mandarin Oriental.

He said that he could not recommend the sale of the penthouse, meaning the sale was off.

In 2018, Mr Brown brought legal action at the High Court against Mr Candy, his company Candy Capital, and One Hyde Park, attempting to claim £1.5 billion, but this was thrown out by a judge.

Mr Lascelles said: “The claimant now seeks to resurrect the claims already found to be totally without merit.”

He continued: “It is a reasonable inference that the claimant is seeking to deploy these proceedings to exert pressure and to generate publicity by scurrilous allegations, rather than to pursue any properly arguable legal claim.

“He has wasted significant public resources, including the time of numerous judges, masters and employees of HM Courts and Tribunals Service, against whom he has also made serious and wholly unfounded allegations of wrongdoing.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and party treasurer Nick Candy with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk (PA Media)

Mr Brown was made bankrupt following the previous litigation after he failed to pay legal costs.

At the hearing on Tuesday, he said he was made bankrupt as a result of fraud.

He said: “Any reasonable person would say that is a kangaroo court. This is the basic principle, I am entitled to have a fair trial and a completely fair fight.

“How can it be a fair fight if I am outnumbered?”

He also asked the court to allow his case to continue because he was “hoping to get the backing of Elon Musk”.

If that happens, the case “will be all over”, he added.

Mr Brown also claimed that lawyers for Mr Candy had “cheated” by confirming a witness statement as true when they knew it to be false.

He said that this amounted to contempt of court, but it was refused by Judge Cadwallader, who described Mr Brown’s claims as “incoherent”.

The judge said: “Mr Brown attempted to suggest that the lawyers acting for the defendants were clever people and used to the exercise of working out what the claim means, but that is no answer.

“They are entitled not to have to guess.”

He continued: “Accordingly, I will make an order dismissing the claimant’s claim on all these grounds against all the defendants.”

Judge Cadwallader also ordered a civil restraining order to prevent Mr Brown from bringing further legal action about the same issue and ordered him to pay costs.

About Our Ads

Source