Judge: Prince Charles's 'unwelcome' role over Chelsea Barracks

The Prince of Wales made an "unwelcome" bid to influence Britain's most expensive housing project, a High Court judge said today.

Mr Justice Vos said Prince Charles had put the Qatari royal family and property tycoon Christian Candy in "a very difficult position" after criticising the modernist design architects had planned for Chelsea Barracks.

His comments came at the conclusion of a two-year legal battle over the collapse of the £3 billion development in central London.

Today Mr Candy won his claim against the Qatari royal family, who were found in breach of contract for dropping the scheme after lobbying by Charles. But the developer has not received a penny in damages and must still pursue his claim for £68.5 million compensation.

The judge declined to order the Middle Eastern royals to pay Surrey-born millionaire Mr Candy, who is behind some of London's most controversial property schemes.

He left open the door for a new round in the long-running legal battle next month as Mr Candy fights on to claim what he believes are his lost millions, as well as spiralling legal costs.

The two-year tussle between the developers was triggered when Qatari Diar, the ruling family's investment arm, withdrew modernist plans for the Chelsea Barracks site in the face of opposition from Charles.

The Prince of Wales wrote an emotional letter to the Qatari prime minister attacking the "brutalist" design by architect Lord Rogers. He then personally voiced his opposition to the scheme to the emir, the "absolute ruler" of Qatar, over tea at Clarence House in May last year.

The move sparked panic in Qatar, and the design for the 12.8-acre barracks site was dropped the next month.

Mr Candy then sued Qatari Diar, claiming breach of contract.

Today, Mr Justice Vos said the Prince's intervention in the planning process was "no doubt unexpected and unwelcome".

In today's ruling he said the Prince of Wales had put Qatari Diar and CPC in "a very difficult position through his intervention". He added: "The effects were, I suspect, exacerbated by the inevitable publicity which followed and by the continuing economic malaise affecting the market for upscale developments like Chelsea Barracks."

The judge also criticised the head of Qatari Diar, Ghanem Al-Saad, who gave evidence in court, as a "not completely reliable witness".

He attacked his "plainly motivated . . . desire to keep both the emir and Sheikh Hamad [the prime minister of Qatar] out of the picture".

He added: "I do not accept that Mr Al-Saad made all the decisions for Qatari Diar on this project without regard to the views of Sheikh Hamad or the emir."

Neil Kitchener QC, acting for Mr Candy's CPC Group, accused representatives of Qatari Diar of lying and said the decision was a victory for Mr Candy, who with his brother Nick is behind the One Hyde Park development.

He told the court: "Mr Al-Saad, in particular, came to court in order to lie about the emir's involvement and that is what he did."

But a spokesman for Qatari Diar launched a counter-attack, saying CPC had failed in its ultimate aim to win cash from its former development partners.

He said: "While the judge found the withdrawal of the detailed planning application . . . was not, at the time, technically permissible under the contract, he accepted that Qatari Diar's approach was an entirely reasonable response to an extremely difficult situation'."

In his conclusions, the judge urged both sides to put aside their grievances, work together and stop wasting millions on court action.

He said: "It may still not be too late. It will be commendable if the outcome of this judgment were that the parties, even at this late stage, started to work collaboratively together."

The judge also ruled that Qatari Diar's involvement with Prince Charles and the subsequent withdrawing of the planning application did not amount to a breach of "good faith" under the terms of the contract between the developers.

Ruth Reed, president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, said: "The evidence presented to the High Court during this trial details the inappropriate behind-the-scenes methods used by the Prince of Wales to object to the original design for the Chelsea Barracks scheme, which effectively derailed a project which had been proceeding through the planning system.

"The UK has a democratic and properly constituted planning process: any citizen in this country is able to register their objections to proposed buildings with the appropriate local authority.

"The Prince of Wales, like any individual, is entitled to raise concerns about architecture, but we regret that on this occasion he failed to engage with the planning process entirely openly and appropriately."

Prince Charles

Charles, 61, has strong views on modern architecture which led him to make an explosive intervention in London's most expensive residential property development. In his private letter to the Qatari prime minister, the Prince warned the £3 billion scheme could ruin the "very soul of our capital city". He later spoke to London's planning chief, deputy mayor Sir Simon Milton, about his dislike of the scheme and made his views known to the Emir of Qatar over tea at Clarence House.

Christian Candy

The 35-year-old partner of elder brother Nick in the Candy & Candy property empire, Christian Candy founded Guernsey-based CPC, which invested in the barracks scheme. The Candy international interior design and property brand grew from a £122,000 investment in an Earls Court flat. The name has become a byword for "oligarch chic", linked with some of the most audacious property schemes in London. Their One Hyde Park project is part-funded by the Qatari prime minister.

The Emir of Qatar

The "absolute ruler" of Qatar, who was born in 1952, is the cousin of the country's prime minister. Charles invited him and his wife, Sheika Moza, an old friend, for tea at Clarence House in May last year, when the subject of Chelsea Barracks was discussed. The court heard that after the meeting, the Emir "went mental" with the head of Qatari Diar because he felt the sensibilities of a fellow royal had been offended. The Emir is said to have demanded that the scheme be withdrawn as soon as possible.