A High Court judge has thrown out what he described as a 'hopeless' and 'baseless' multi-million-pound legal claim brought against Reform UK party treasurer Nick Candy.
'Incoherent' and 'Misconceived' Claim Dismissed
Judge Neil Cadwallader dismissed the case brought by litigant Michael Brown, who was representing himself. Mr Brown had sought a staggering £659 million in damages from Mr Candy and eight other defendants, including the luxury One Hyde Park complex in Knightsbridge where the property is located.
The claim centred on an alleged fraudulent valuation of Mr Candy's penthouse and an alleged breach of contract related to a potential sale. However, the judge found the case utterly without merit, stating the details were extremely difficult to discern and the claims were 'bound to fail'.
Judge Cadwallader remarked, "Not only were these claims hopeless, they were misconceived and baseless." He further described Mr Brown's allegations as 'incoherent' during the hearing.
History of a Failed Property Deal and Litigation
The court heard that the origins of the dispute dated back to 2016. Mr Brown contacted Mr Candy's representatives, claiming a Saudi prince was interested in purchasing the penthouse. In July of that year, Mr Candy's team provided a letter from estate agency Savills indicating an estimated value of £160 million.
However, the potential deal collapsed just two days later when Mr Brown sent an email alleging he had received racist abuse at the neighbouring Mandarin Oriental hotel and stated he could no longer recommend the sale.
This was not Mr Brown's first legal action on the matter. In 2018, he brought a separate High Court claim against Mr Candy, his company Candy Capital, and One Hyde Park, attempting to claim £1.5 billion. That case was also thrown out by a judge.
David Lascelles, representing Mr Candy, told the court this latest action was an attempt to 'resurrect the claims already found to be totally without merit'. He suggested Mr Brown was using the proceedings to exert pressure and generate publicity through 'scurrilous allegations'.
Courtroom Drama and a Restraining Order
The hearing on Tuesday 16 December 2025 was marked by unusual incidents. Mr Brown, who represented himself, left the hearing halfway through, citing medical reasons. During his submissions, he argued his previous bankruptcy resulted from fraud and complained the process was not a 'fair fight'.
In a remarkable statement to the court, Mr Brown said he was "hoping to get the backing of Elon Musk", claiming that if secured, the case "will be all over". He also accused Mr Candy's lawyers of 'cheating', an allegation the judge refused to entertain.
Concluding the case, Judge Cadwallader ordered the claim dismissed against all defendants. To prevent further repetitive claims, he also imposed a civil restraining order on Mr Brown, prohibiting him from bringing further legal action on the same issue. Mr Brown was also ordered to pay costs.
The judge emphasised that defendants are "entitled not to have to guess" the nature of a claim, noting that Mr Brown's action had wasted significant public resources and court time.
