logo
Paddy McKillen's billion-pound legal battle over Claridge's hotel reaches ‘high noon'

Paddy McKillen's billion-pound legal battle over Claridge's hotel reaches ‘high noon'

Irish Times17-05-2025
A three-person arbitration panel convened privately in London this week to try to resolve a dispute over Claridge's hotel that forms the centrepiece of one of the most acrimonious, and potentially lucrative, legal battles of the past decade.
On one side is
Paddy McKillen
, the wealthy Irish property developer who owns a whiskey distillery with U2 star Bono. On the other, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, the billionaire former prime minister of
Qatar
known as HBJ.
McKillen claims he is owed up to £1 billion (€1.2 billion) for his work at three of the world's most glamorous hotels – Claridge's, the Connaught and the Berkeley – all located in rarefied central London postcodes.
McKillen, 70, and HBJ, 66, were once close allies, spending time together on yachts and in swanky hotels. But this week's arbitration is unfolding amid a bitter legal battle, spanning at least a dozen claims and disputes in Europe and the US, between the former friends and their associates.
READ MORE
Three arbitrators – one chosen by each side, and a third chosen by the other two, according to those familiar with the terms – will now decide who emerges claiming victory.
[
Irish businessman Paddy McKillen claims he is victim of 'smear campaign' by Qatari royal family
Opens in new window
]
While sources said it may take as long as two months for a decision to be reached, a resolution to a dispute that began three years ago may now be in sight.
'It's high noon,' said one person close to the process.
Claridge's – the 169-year-old luxury Mayfair hotel that was a favourite of Queen Elizabeth II – is the crown jewel in a multibillion-pound portfolio of high end London properties owned by Qatar and wealthy members of its ruling family.
Belfast-born McKillen, who went into property in the 1980s after a stint working in his family's exhaust repair business, first invested in Claridge's in 2004.
His investment came under threat in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when the Barclay brothers tried to seize control of Claridge's, the Connaught and the Berkeley, now known collectively as the
Maybourne Hotel Group
.
McKillen secured Qatari backing to help resolve his legal battle with the Barclays, former owners of the Telegraph newspaper. The 2015 rescue saw HBJ and the former Qatari emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (HBK), take full control of Maybourne in a £1.3 billion deal that resolved McKillen's legal case, wiped out his debts and reduced his equity in the hotels to zero.
The Qataris subsequently agreed to an unconventional deal that McKillen hoped would allow him to share in the future upside of the hotels. Under the terms of the seven-year contract, McKillen's business,
Hume Street Management Consultants
(HSMC), would refurbish, manage and extend the hotels. The deal granted McKillen 36 per cent of any subsequent increase in valuation across the three hotels, minus the costs of the work.
But his involvement in the hotels – due to end in December 2022 – was cut short in April of that year, when McKillen was unexpectedly told by the Qataris he would no longer be working for them.
The size of McKillen's unpaid earnings from this arrangement sit at the heart of the dispute playing out this week in London.
McKillen argues that the extensive refurbishment work at Claridge's – which included adding an opulent underground spa and a £60,000-per-night penthouse suite, replete with 75 Damien Hirst artworks – has helped substantially boost Claridge's value.
The developer argues that those improvements, allied to a buoyant luxury hotel market post-Covid, means his payout should be in the hundreds of millions.
However, sources close to the Qataris claim the significant costs of work at the hotels means McKillen is owed substantially less than he claims. Even so, those close to the Qataris acknowledge McKillen is still owed something.
One person with knowledge of the dispute said that given the baseline value of £1.3 billion, and about £600 million-£700 million in costs, any valuation above £2 billion would mean McKillen is entitled to 36 per cent of the upside thereafter. Estimates being talked about by advisers have varied between less than £3 billion to over £5 billion, according to one person with knowledge of the situation, which would equate to a payout of more than £1 billion at the top end.
There have been attempts at mediation, according to one person with knowledge of the situation, with the most recent taking place in autumn 2023, after McKillen withdrew an attempt to extend the claim over a number of newer luxury hotels in the US and France, leaving the focus on the original three sites in London that had been the portfolio over the seven-year period.
In the meantime, the two sides appear to have been waging commercial lawfare. Claims and counterclaims have been filed across multiple countries, relating to developments owned by HBJ, or his associates and companies connected with them, on which McKillen claims refurbishment or development work.
People familiar with the Qataris' position claim McKillen thought he could 'embarrass' them into striking a deal by filing lawsuits that generated headlines and scrutiny of the complex ownership structures that often lie behind property acquisitions. They point to some of the victories secured so far in courts over McKillen.
McKillen's side argues the Qataris have been equally aggressive in their attempts to get him to back down from the Claridge's dispute.
Representatives for McKillen and the Qatari owners of Claridge's declined to comment on the confidential arbitration process.
In a statement, a spokesperson for McKillen said: 'It is right that he has taken, and will continue to take, all necessary steps to enforce his rights. As Mr McKillen has made clear over the four-year period since his departure from the Maybourne Hotel Group, he will not be deterred by any attempted campaign to cause damage to his business interests or smear his reputation.'
The Financial Times has identified a dozen legal clashes between the two sides – mainly in the UK, France or the US – often seeking money for work that McKillen and his companies say has been carried out for the Qataris and associated groups. Work for which McKillen claims he has not been paid.
Other cases have been started by the Qataris, which claim McKillen used Maybourne contractors, paid for by Maybourne, to undertake work at his hotel in France last July. McKillen denies the allegations.
The cases involve luxury properties, including hotels on the French Riviera and in Paris and Bel-Air, California, and homes in Manhattan and London. McKillen is claiming tens of millions of pounds of unpaid fees.
In March, a high court judge in the UK prevented McKillen's HSMC from serving a £3.7 million claim outside England, in a dispute over fees for work at Forbes House, a grade II listed mansion in Belgravia, bought by HBJ in 2016.
HSMC has appealed against the ruling and is seeking renewed permission to serve proceedings. McKillen has started new proceedings in his own name.
Separately, McKillen was convicted this year of verbally assaulting a female bailiff in his apartment on the Place Vendôme, a grand public square in Paris. The bailiff had entered his property with a locksmith in a dispute over mortgage repayments to a Qatar-owned private wealth manager.
McKillen is appealing against the decision. He denies any violence or wrongdoing, has filed an ethics complaint before the Paris disciplinary chamber of bailiffs, and his lawyers have in the past described the case as 'part of a more general smear campaign' against him.
Most recently, in April, McKillen filed a lawsuit in a California district court alleging that HBK and HBJ, as well as several of their business associates and related companies, sought to defraud him.
He alleges they did not pay for his firm's work at a number of properties which are already the focus of other cases, using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Qatar has denied the claims.
'Paddy McKillen and associated parties have orchestrated claims across multiple jurisdictions, all of which are either ongoing or have been struck out by the courts. We will continue to contest these claims and prove the assertions and allegations to be unsubstantiated and entirely false,' said a spokesperson for Maybourne.
The latest case under the RICO act adds to a long and costly list of lawsuits. However, the hundreds of millions of pounds at stake in the Claridge's arbitration is the real prize for both sides.
The sight of expensive tabs being quietly settled is a familiar one in the hotel's luxurious bars and restaurants. With the panel of arbitration in London totting up how much the Qataris owe McKillen, the owners of Claridge's will soon find out just how large their own bill will be. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Property firm refused permission to continue letting 10 apartments near Dublin Castle
Property firm refused permission to continue letting 10 apartments near Dublin Castle

Irish Times

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Property firm refused permission to continue letting 10 apartments near Dublin Castle

Dublin City Council has refused planning retention to a property firm which lists its apartments for short-term letting to tourists on the Airbnb and platforms. Dublin Castle Suites advertises its 10 apartments close to Temple Bar and can earn up to €350 per night per apartment on busy weekends. The owner of the apartments, facing on to Parliament Street and Dame Street, would earn only a fraction of its current rental income if they were to be rented for long-term only. A question mark has now been put over the lucrative enterprise following the council's decision to refuse planning retention to allow the apartments to continue as short-term lets. READ MORE The applicant, Olympia Real Estate Limited, now has the option of appealing to An Coimisiún Pleanála, which could reverse the council's planning refusal. [ 'We can't afford to live here': Westport housing crisis leaves no room for locals as homeowners turn to Airbnb Opens in new window ] In its decision, the council noted that there was a general presumption in the Dublin City Council Development Plan against the provision of dedicated short-term tourist rental accommodation in the city due to the impact on the availability of housing stock. The council stated that Olympia Real Estate Ltd has not provided a sufficient justification for the provision of short lease apartments at this location. It found that the proposal to continue the apartments for short-term letting 'would create an undesirable precedent for similar type development and would devalue property in the vicinity'. Olympia Real Estate Limited lodged the planning application after the council issued it with a warning letter over the use of the apartments for short-term letting. Planning consultants for the applicants, Cunnane Stratton Reynolds (CSR), stated that 'enabling housing as short-term let accommodation in this instance redirects such demand away from mainstream housing'. 'The proposed tourism accommodation will assist in the attractiveness of the area for tourists and will promote a continued busy and vibrant city centre,' the consultants added. CSR stated that its client's ability to acoustically meet the standards of normal accommodation was not available given the protected status of the premises in question. They state 'in a period of substantial housing crisis these units cannot remain vacant'. Objecting to the planned retention, Fiachra Brennan of Oakcourt Park, Dublin 20 and who works on Parliament Street said that 'these are high-quality urban apartments which should be available on the long-term rental market'. 'The applicant has pointed to issues with regard to soundproofing and insulation – this should not preclude the use of the property for its intended purpose,' he said.

Should I be paying tax in UK on a pension if I live in Ireland?
Should I be paying tax in UK on a pension if I live in Ireland?

Irish Times

time7 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Should I be paying tax in UK on a pension if I live in Ireland?

I hope you can help me with the following situation. I am 68 and in receipt of an Irish state pension, a UK occupational pension , a US social security pension and an Irish annuity. My issue is with the UK pension which related to work I did for an Irish-registered, Irish-domiciled company, whose head office/parent was based in the UK. I have received the UK occupational pension since the age of 60. For roughly the first five years, no UK tax was deducted. About three years ago, payments were transferred to a company called Aptia (before that I think it was Mercer). Since then, UK tax has been deducted on the gross pension. I have never lived nor worked in the UK. I never registered for a UK national insurance number, but Aptia says one has been issued to me. I seem to have n tax-free allowance in the UK, so tax is applied each month to the full (gross) amount of the pension. READ MORE I report the net amount that I receive to Revenue in the return I make each year which also includes by US pension, based on the money received by my Irish bank account. I do not currently declare that UK tax has been deducted (as I don't know if I can, or should). Am I actually liable to pay UK tax on this pension? If not, how can I reclaim the tax already paid and stop future deductions? (I cannot find a UK phone number that works from outside the UK. HMRC's online system rejects my NI number because I cannot provide a related – UK – postcode!) If I am liable in the UK, does Revenue allow me to offset the UK tax against any Irish liability or if I don't have a liability to get that money back? I estimate I lose just under £1,000 per year in UK tax. Is this money gone, or can I recover it? Mr G.B. Being Irish, having pensions in multiple countries has always been something of an occupational risk. In the old days when people emigrated and stayed in their new country of residence for life, it was not really an issue but, certainly since the 1980s, it has been quite common for people to head abroad for work, often moving between countries and then returning home here to Ireland at some point. And that means you leave a patchwork of pension funds in your wake. Liability to tax in Ireland is determined by your (tax residence) and domicile. In very basic terms, if, as you are, a person is resident and domiciled in Ireland, you are liable to Irish income tax on your worldwide income. Someone who is tax resident in Ireland but not domiciled here is liable to Irish tax only on income arising in Ireland – such as from work, pensions, rent, dividends etc – income earned from a foreign employer if that money relates to work carried out in Ireland and any other foreign income that is brought into the State. People who are neither tax resident nor domiciled in Ireland are the same as tax residents except they do not have to worry about tax on foreign income brought into the State. So, you are liable to tax in Ireland on all your earnings – and that means your gross UK pension, not the net amount after UK tax. That sounds like it might create an issue for you in relation to your Revenue filings for the past three years but there is a qualification to Irish liability to tax – it is subject to any relief due under the terms of a double taxation agreement. And we have one of them with the UK. Generally, under such agreements, there is a provision that your country of residence will allow a credit against your tax liability here in relation to any tax deducted in the other country. However, under the double taxation agreement between Ireland and the UK, there is also a specific measure relating to pensions. It states, among other things, that 'pensions and other similar remuneration paid in consideration of past employment to a resident of a contracting state and any annuity paid to such a resident shall be taxable only in that state. Resident of a contracting state means one of the two parties to an agreement. And those 'other things', well that relates to Government work (local or national) for which pensions are taxed in the state where that work was done. But even then, if you are an Irish citizen and not also a UK citizen, UK pensions for Government-related work would also be taxed here, not in the UK. So, no, you should not be liable to pay income tax in the UK on this UK occupational pension. And this is where I get annoyed because this is not a new agreement; it has been in force since 1976. So there is absolutely no reason why the UK revenue and the people paying your UK occupational pension should not be aware of it. Aptia sells itself as 'a specialist company that focuses on administration for pensions and benefits, with a global presence and a team of experienced and passionate professionals'. Is it possible you could be UK tax resident? It is but they know they are communicating with an Irish bank and an Irish address. And if there was a proper handover from the previous pension manager, they should be aware that certain pensions were being paid gross up to that point. So, at the very least, they should have known that there were queries to be made before arbitrarily taxing you in the UK – and possibly advice for you as a member of a scheme they managed if you were required to act in any way to ensure that happened. I'd love to say this is a one-off but I had a similar situation previously with a large, publicly-listed UK firm. And despite making the case to them that the pension involved was not liable to tax in the UK, they insisted on continuing to do so. There are only two possible reasons for this: either these pensions specialists do not train their people properly or they simply do not care. Neither is very encouraging. Your situation is even more daft. Not only are you not now a UK resident (for tax purposes), you have never been resident in the UK – to the extent that you were unaware you even had a national insurance number. Recouping your money So what now? The good news is that you should be able to reclaim the tax paid over the past three years in the UK and ensure that Aptia henceforth pay your UK occupational pension to you gross. It will then be taxed here in Ireland. The bad news is twofold. One, you obviously need to amend your Irish tax returns for the relevant years as you are liable here for tax on the gross UK pension, not the net amount. Second, as I can attest from going through the process, it can takes well over a year (literally) to get this sorted with His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). However, it appears the system has been streamlined somewhat since I fought my way through it a decade ago. The first thing you need to do is download Form IRL-Individual, which can be found here . You will see an accompanying file with notes on how to complete the form. Take the time to make sure everything is correct or it will only be sent back to you, delaying things. Importantly, although this is a HMRC form, you must return it to the Irish Revenue in the first instance – at whatever office deals with your income tax affairs. They need to stamp and sign the form to confirm you are Irish tax resident and they then send the form direct to their UK counterparts. Once the UK is happy with the details, they will refund any tax deducted in error in past tax years – i.e. up to April 2025 – to your Irish bank account. They will also confirm your status with Aptia, which should then arrange for repayment of any tax deducted from your UK pension in the current UK tax year and pay your UK pension into your Irish bank account gross going forward. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice

Export figures are hard to interpret right now, given flux around tariffs
Export figures are hard to interpret right now, given flux around tariffs

Irish Times

time12 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Export figures are hard to interpret right now, given flux around tariffs

It's hard to know where the State's trade with the US will land once the tariff impact has been digested. There's a lag effect to these levies combined with an uncertainty as to who will ultimately bear the cost. Trump and his Maga operatives are acting as if the burden falls totally outside the US and are boasting about the billions of dollars the US exchequer is likely to garner. But precedent suggests the tariff hit tends to fall on importing firms and ultimately domestic consumers. That's why everyone is looking at the US economy for signs of a slowdown. In the interim, we've got volatile trade numbers. The latest figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) show the value of exports from Ireland to the US fell by whopping 60 per cent between May and June, dropping from €10.8 billion to €4.4 billion. READ MORE The headline June figure was also down by a quarter on the same month last year. Most of this merely reflects a levelling of the surge seen in the earlier part of the year when firms rushed to stockpile goods in the US in advance of Trump's Liberation Day tariff announcement on April 2nd. The trade will presumably find its level once all this settles down. The European Union and the Government will be hoping for a manageable decline. From Ireland's perspective, the 15 per cent tariff on pharma , the main element of the State's export trade with the US, represents damage but controlled damage in the context of the US's retreat from free trade. Pharma firms here make big profits, big enough to absorb the hit without uprooting themselves. These companies work around 10-year cycles of investment and are therefore unlikely to jump ship on the whim of one of Trump's policy announcements. The biggest buyer of pharma is state healthcare and therefore much of the trade is inelastic, less sensitive to price changes. That's probably why Trump, in parallel to tariffs, is demanding these firms reduce their prices in the US. His threat to hike tariffs on EU pharma imports up to 250 per cent within a few years flies in the face of the EU-US trade deal and any notion of certainty it might signify. But that's the world we're in at the moment and why the CSO and other data points are so volatile.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store