• March 28, 2024
 High Court Hears Zaha Hadid Executor Dispute Today

High Court Hears Zaha Hadid Executor Dispute Today

The feud between executors of Zaha Hadid’s estate has developed and built momentum like a heavyweight boxing bout. The acrimonious and bitter events will reach their climax today as they head to High Court.

As the initial hearing takes place in the Business and Property Court, the area of the court specialising in probate matters will listen to issues and discuss the procedural matters going forward.

Patrik Schumacher, long-term business partner of Zaha Hadid, has brought the case to High Court amidst concerns that the other three executors have worked improperly with the estate’s assets.

In particular, he states that the transfer of cash and assets from Zaha Hadid Limited (ZHL) will reduce ZHL’s ability to continue as a going concern.

His lengthy allegations include:

  • The executors, Lord Palumbo, Brian Clarke and Rana Hadid, manoeuvred to have themselves appointed to the board of Zaha Hadid Holdings (ZHH);
  • Schumacher would have his employment with ZHL terminated if he did not agree to the transfer of cash and assets out of ZHL and the appointment of two new directors to the board;
  • The name of Zaha Hadid was to be dropped from the firm and all “Zaha Hadid” trademarks be transferred to the Zaha Hadid Foundation;
  • A letter was signed in February 2018 by 36 directors and senior staff at ZHL expressing serious concern about the suggested appointment of six new directors;
  • A consultant, Charlotte Phillips, brought in with a colleague, was not independent by virtue of her close connection as friend and neighbour to one of the executors, Brian Clark;
  • Phillips’ appointment to the board was objected to by the rest of the ZHL board;
  • The board objected to a proposal that ZHL’s intellectual property rights be assigned to the Foundation and leased back to ZHL for a fee;
  • Phillips decided that all contracts and salaries at ZHL must be pre-approved by ZHH;
  • The board of ZHH resolved to direct ZHL to pay a dividend of £3.25m to ZHH.

In 2017, the three former executors had themselves and Schumacher named as directors rather than executors of Zaha Hadid Holdings (ZHH). Where executors are forced to agree unanimously on estate decisions, the title of directors allowed the three to rule by majority, something that Schumacher claims has led to the concerns.

 

A Spokesperson for the three executor’s, Brian Clarke, Lord Palumbo and Rana Hadid, said: “The attempt to remove these three executors is totally unjustified and misconceived. They were appointed personally by Zaha Hadid because she trusted them to act in her best interests. All three were known to Zaha for decades; one was a close family member, and the other two were very good friends… They have at all times acted properly and in good faith with the desire to do their best for the estate given their friendship with Zaha Hadid.”

Patrik Schumacher, executor of Zaha Hadid’s etstate and claimant, said: “The defendants have improperly allowed their personal animosity towards and resentment of the claimant to influence their decision-making. As a result, they have failed to properly administer the estate and act in the best interests of the beneficiaries.”

Regardless of the outcome in High Court, it seems clear that an amicable resolution is unlikely to be reached.

Is the dispute likely to negatively impact on the beneficiaries? Should an executor allow themselves the position of a director to enable them to rule by majority?

Martin Parrin