Longleat heir sues Queen’s law firm
THE BBC One documentary All Change At Longleat helped expose Viscount Weymouth’s quarrels with his father, the delightfully dotty Marquess of Bath. Lord Weymouth’s mother, meanwhile, allegedly asked him if he was sure about ruining ‘400 years of bloodline’ by marrying the half-Nigerian daughter of an oil tycoon, Emma McQuiston.
Now Lord Weymouth, whose name is Ceawlin Thynn, has become embroiled in a High Court battle with the Queen’s solicitors Farrer & Co over personal data it holds on him.
He is suing Farrers after the firm accepted in April that it holds intimate information about him, according to a High Court writ.
Despite accepting that it was the data controller of various Longleat companies and charities controlled by his father, Farrers did not disclose the data it held on Lord Weymouth.
Ceawlin, 42, took over running the 10,000-acre estate and safari park in Wiltshire from his 85-year-old father in 2010.
The pair fell out when Ceawlin took down colourful murals painted by Lord Bath at Longleat before his marriage to Emma in 2013.
Farrers also refused to say when it would disclose the data, according to the writ.
This is the second time the viscount’s dispute with a lawyer has reached the courts, as last year he sued Richard Parry, head of family law at Farrers, in a bid to remove him as a trustee of three family trusts.
Weymouth is seeking a court ruling that Farrer & Co has failed to comply with his request under the Data Protection Act, and pay the costs of this legal action.
He tells me: ‘I made a subject access request to Farrers, asking for personal information about me, which I believe I am entitled to.
‘They refused to provide it without what I believe is any satisfactory justification.
‘Regrettably, I have been forced to bring a claim against them.’
A spokesman for Farrer & Co suggests that Lord Weymouth will have to wait. ‘Following a recent change in the law, the firm has agreed to provide disclosure.
‘The proceedings are now really about timetabling rather than entitlement to the documents.’