Ex-oil baron in $3m battle over ‘mystery signature’

Monday 24 June 2019

One of Jersey’s wealthiest residents has been forced to put up $3million to continue fighting against the company that brokered a $100m oil deal with Qatar’s Prime Minister on his behalf, after the Royal Court judged his claim that he didn’t know how his signature appeared on a contract to be “weak”.

The battle between high-value resident Tony Buckingham - whose wealth stands around £425million according to the Sunday Times Rich List - and Trico Limited centres on the sale of the former CEO's shares in Heritage Oil to His Excellency Sheikh Hamad Bin Jabor Al Thani, a former Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

The Royal Court, presided by Master Matthew Thompson, heard in May that Trico’s director Mr Terry Ruane signed an agreement with Heritage’s Chief Finnacial Officer in 2014.

It stated that Mr Ruane had a connection of 25 years with a “private investor in Qatar”, who was interested in acquiring a stake in Heritage, which has worked across Iran, Uganda, Mali, Pakistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo since Mr Buckingham founded it in 1992.

Pictured: His Excellency Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani. (Hamad Bin Jassim/Wiki)

If any investment was to take place, the contract said that Trico was owed a success fee.

But, following the transaction, Mr Buckingham disputed the validity of the contract, which would have led to a $3million commission in return for the sale of $100million of his shares in Heritage.

The ongoing refusal to pay led Trico to begin court proceedings against Mr Buckingham, who is believed to have been a former member of the Special Boat Service before entering the oil industry in the 1970s as a North Sea diver.

Mr Buckingham claimed that did not know how his signature had appeared on the contract – even going so far as to suggest it was the fraudulent creation of Trico and his Chief Financial Officer, among other claims described by the Master of the Court as “unjustified”.

Advocate Thompson explained in his judgment that, despite later withdrawing the allegations against his CFO, Mr Buckingham never revealed “how or why they came to be made in the first place and why they were later withdrawn”.

He continued: “The defendant does not explain why he did not accept for months that the signature was his. More significantly nor has he explained why he suddenly accepted the signature was his. This lack of explanation is material to what is a claim for an unpaid fee for an introduction.  

“The overall impression of the different stances taken by the defendant is that he refuses to accept anything unless compelled to do so and also refuses to commit to any position beyond alleging fraud against others until the plaintiff has set out all its evidence and provided all material upon which it relies. Only then has the defendant provided a response. The court however expects a cards on the table approach as early as possible… The defendant has not taken such an approach.”

The only part of the dispute deemed to be appropriate to proceed to trial was Mr Buckingham's claim that he had no recollection of a meeting - a stance supported by his partner.

Nonetheless, Advocate Thompson described this argument as “weak” and ordered that Mr Buckingham put up $3million as security if he is unsuccessful in his claim against Trico, which is represented by Advocate Howard Sharp.

“It is only the evidence of the defendant’s partner supporting the defendant’s lack of recollection that has led me to accept that the defendant’s case has “some degree of conviction” to get over the required threshold to justify a trial,” the Master of the Court's judgment read.

“Therefore if the defendant wishes to defend the claim, the defendant must either pay into court or provide an irrevocable bank guarantee or equivalent security in the sum of $3 million being 3% of the US$100 million received by the defendant or companies on his behalf.  As the defendant received US$100 million for the transaction in 2018, I do not see how the order of a payment into court or the provision of equivalent security is oppressive or disproportionate.  The defendant will have 28 days either to make such a payment or to provide bank guarantee or equivalent security.”

The 28-day limit will expire next week.