Property giant Dandara yesterday branded its former Jersey MD a “fantasist” and “Walter Mitty” character who falsified documents as it fought to limit his ability to move money around ahead of a multi-million Royal Court battle in the coming months.
But Martin Clancy, whose legal representative claimed in the Royal Court yesterday that the developer was only seeking to wear his client down, successfully fended off the attempt.
As Express revealed for the first time yesterday, Mr Clancy, who left Dandara suddenly in June 2023, is being sued by the company. They are asking for £6.4 million, with claims that he took out unpaid loans, wrongfully collected rent, and kept a company-owned Range Rover worth £27,000. The company alleges that he resigned around a time when there was a £30m-40m shortfall and soon after set up a rival firm.
However, Mr Clancy has made a counterclaim for £11 million, arguing that he is owed significant unpaid bonuses. He claims that he did not resign, but that he was forced out of the business he had worked for since 1991.
Ahead of a Royal Court trial expected to take place in the coming months, Dandara yesterday sought an injunction that would have prevented Mr Clancy from distributing his assets, which are estimated to be around £4m following the sale of his former St Brelade family home for £7.4m last summer.
Dandara’s fear, Deputy Bailiff Robert MacRae was told, was that the money may be used to buy a property in St Clement, which, if purchased under Mr Clancy’s wife’s name, would mean that Mr Clancy himself would not have sufficient assets to pay his former employer in the event they win the upcoming legal battle.
It was possible, the Royal Court heard, that Mr Clancy could be left en désastre, Jersey’s equivalent of bankruptcy.
A scathing attack
Arguing in favour of the injunction, Advocate Niall MacDonald, representing Dandara, launched a scathing attack on Mr Clancy’s credibility.
He told the Royal Court that he was not just a “Walter Mitty” character but also a “liar and a fantasist” who would say anything to further his financial ambitions.
That included, he alleged, falsifying mortgage documents, reinforcing Dandara’s argument that his financial claims were built on deception.
However, Advocate Marcus Pallot, acting for Mr Clancy, successfully opposed the injunction, suggesting it was part of a campaign to wear his client down.
The court heard extracts from a document by Mr Clancy estimating Dandara’s pre-tax profits on a turnover of £2.8bn between 2011 and 2013.
However, the company disputed his entitlement to any share of their earnings, and further claimed that the figures he provided could not be true – Mr Clancy, they said, did not have access to group data.
“Bully” claim
Advocate Pallot argued that Mr Clancy had been treated unfairly.
The vast majority of Dandara’s profits, he said, had gone to Mr Tynan, whom he characterised as a “bully” who wanted to keep control over Mr Clancy and withheld promised payments.
As evidence, the Royal Court was presented with emails between Mr Clancy and Mr Tynan. One of which included a request to borrow money from the company, to which Mr Tynan replied: “Sure, Martin.”
Noting the casual nature of Mr Clancy and Mr Tynan’s interactions, Advocate Pallot said: “This is the way it was done. Dan Tynan and Martin Clancy met and spoke to each other.”
“This isn’t the case that we’ve got a Walter Mitty in our midst,” he insisted.
Mr Clancy, he said, had used the money to buy property in Grève d’Azette, comprising three two-bedroom homes for himself and his wife, as well as for extended family to live or visit.
Application rejected
After considering the arguments, the Deputy Bailiff rejected Dandara’s application, meaning that Mr Clancy is free to use the £4 million while the wider legal battle continues.
The case over the multi-million-pound financial claims between the two parties is expected to go to trial in the coming months.