Candy brothers’ blackmail claim over drunken video

A DRUNKEN holiday video is being used to blackmail the billionaire Candy brothers in their war with a former business partner, the High Court has been told.

Nicholas Candy is demanding to be handed the footage, in which he “said and did some embarrassing things”, because he claims its use would breach the Data Protection Act (DPA).

Mr Justice Warby revealed Nicholas Candy is suing Mark Holyoake, his wife Emma, who made the video, and three business associates: David Wells, William Pym and William Lovering.

The proceedings are separate to the current £132m claim against the 44year-old billionaire and his brother Christian by Mr Holyoake, his former friend and property development business partner.

In a preliminary hearing over disclosure following a closed court hearing, the judge said: “The claim arises from events at Mr Holyoake’s home in Ibiza in the summer of 2010.

“On 12 June the Candys, the Holyoakes, and two companions had been out for the evening in town. On their return Mr Candy, heavily intoxicated, said and did some embarrassing things. Mrs Holyoake recorded these events on her phone. The claim relates to that recording.”

The judge added: “The day after the recording was made Mr Candy made requests for its deletion, or the deletion of parts of it. Parts were deleted and parts were retained.

“In November 2014 Mr Holyoake sent Mr Candy an email which Mr Candy characterises as a threat to publish the contents of the recording to the world at large. The intention, he alleges, was to intimidate him in the context of the business dispute which had by then developed.”

Mr Candy wanted judgment without a trial but the judge rejected his argument. He said the Holyoakes and Mr Wells, who was shown the video “of Mr Candy’s drunken behaviour”, admit “that he had certain reasonable expectations as to the privacy and confidentiality of the recording.

“They admit its retention, and its disclosure by Mr Holyoake to Mr Wells. But they deny having misused, or threatened to misuse it. And they deny any breach of duty under the DPA.”

The judge said the case should proceed to trial without undue delay.