Judges vilify 'manipulative' tycoon
May 25th, 2007A FABULOUSLY wealthy African businessman was condemned by three appeal judges yesterday for trying to manipulate Scotland’s supreme civil court.
Chief Oladeinde Fernandez, 69, had been facing a 1 million claim from his former partner in the Court of Session, but he wanted a hearing delayed.
Advised by his QC that a postponement would not be allowed, he and some of his lawyers put in place a scheme to force the court to grant his request. The plot included switching solicitors at a late stage, and Chief Fernandez asserting that he could not come to Scotland because he would be travelling in Africa.
In yesterday’s judgment, Lord Penrose, sitting with Lords Eassie and Mackay, branded the scheme “discreditable” and said: “Any party inclined to adopt such measures should be aware of the risk of condemnation on discovery.”
He went on: “It must be hoped that the machinations of [Chief Fernandez] and his legal advisers in this case were indeed exceptional. It would be difficult to conceive of a more deliberate manipulation of the ordinary procedures of the court in support of a determined intention to default than has occurred in this case.”
The scheme failed, because a judge had refused to continue the case and granted a decree against Chief Fernandez in his absence. That ruling was upheld by appeal judges yesterday.
Chief Fernandez, who was for several years the Central African Republic’s ambassador to the United Nations, set up home with Aduke Fernandez, 55, in a 3 million, seven-storey townhouse in Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh, in 1999. As a hugely successful businessman, his interests included oil wells, gold and diamond mines and property in New York.
The couple separated in 2003 and he moved to live at the Ritz Hotel, Paris. Ms Fernandez raised Scotland’s biggest divorce action, seeking some 300 million, but the chief disputed that they had ever been married. Eventually, a settlement was agreed, part of which involved Ms Fernandez being paid 30,000 a month for three years.
However, Chief Fernandez stopped the payments, claiming Ms Fernandez had breached the agreement. She then asked Lord Macphail to rule that the agreement remained legally binding and to award her 1,020,000. The judge heard some evidence in October 2005 but the case overran its allocated time. It was set down to resume last August.
A few days in advance of that hearing, Chief Fernandez’s team sought a discharge, but Lord Macphail refused. On the day of the hearing, the chief did not attend and his lawyers withdrew. Lord Macphail granted decree by default against Chief Fernandez.
Lord Penrose said it was quite clear from information now available that, unimpressed by advice from his then QC that a motion to discharge the hearing would not succeed and was not appropriate, Chief Fernandez “and at least some of his legal advisers set about implementing a scheme to force the hand of the court and to achieve the discharge that he wished”.
He added: “Such deliberate obstruction of the conduct of civil litigation cannot be tolerated with equanimity.”
Related topic
- http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=859
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=859

Posted in 