Family feud left billionaire facing council nursing home
Bitter legal dispute pushed judge to consider placing one of Britain’s richest men, 86, in public care
A MEMBER of Britain’s richest family, the billionaire Hindujas, was nearly moved into a council care home during a bitter family feud, a court has heard.
Srichand Hinduja, 86, is the eldest of the four brothers behind the Hinduja Group conglomerate and became the focus of a family row when he was diagnosed with dementia.
His family topped the 2022 Sunday Times Rich List and was said to be worth more than £28billion, but a row over his care took the family to the High Court. At the heart of the battle was a pact signed by the four brothers in 2014 that “everything belongs to everyone and nothing belongs to anyone”.
The three other brothers had claimed that the letter governed the succession planning for the conglomerate, a declaration that was challenged by Srichand’s descendants, who claimed that his branch of the family was being sidelined in the group.
With the end of the pact, the stage may now be set for the break up of one of the biggest conglomerates in the world. In London, the family is developing the Old War Office, the imposing building opposite No 10 that once housed Winston Churchill, into a highend hotel.
The brothers agreed to halt reams of litigation across Europe, ending, for now, a feud that was tearing the once tightly knit British-indian group apart.
Mr Justice Hayden, who oversaw hearings in the Court of Protection in London, said Srichand’s needs became “marginalised” by the family dispute, notwithstanding his wealth. He has said that at one stage he had concluded that Srichand should leave hospital, but he said relatives had not found private accommodation despite the “extraordinary scope and reach of their financial capacity”.
The Hinduja Group is an Indian conglomerate that owns businesses in 38 countries, employing more than 150,000 people.
The judge, who outlined concerns in written rulings after hearings in London, said he had been driven to consider a placement in a public nursing home.
Court of Protection judges consider issues relating to people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Details of the proceedings emerged yesterday after Court of Appeal judges in London had analysed issues and, also, ruled that journalists could name people involved. The judge
‘Relatives have not found private accommodation despite the extraordinary scope of their finances’
said at one stage Vinoo and Shanu Hinduja claimed to have drawn “on Srichand’s assets to fund their own costs of this litigation”.
Mr Justice Hayden said the “identified conflict of interest was so flagrant” and so “manifestly contrary to the fiduciary obligations of the attorneys”, that both Vinoo and Shanu Hinduja had “disclaimed the role”.
Judges generally sit in public but normally rule that vulnerable people at the centre of litigation in the Court of Protection cannot be named in media reports of cases – to protect their human right to respect for private and family life.
But, Mr Justice Hayden has ruled that Srichand Hinduja, and others involved in the case, can be named after hearing public-interest arguments from journalists.