|
Exhibit 21
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton to The
Rt Hon the Lord Young of Graffham, Secretary of State Department
of Trade and Industry
As you know, along
with the other Officers of the Trade and Industry Committee, I
have followed closely the House of Fraser Inquiry and the events
leading up to it.
I have come increasingly to the view that the
recent history of this affair gives considerable cause for disquiet
on several grounds.
First, in view of the Government's stated policy
that competition is the nexus of any public interest in mergers
and takeovers, it is difficult to understand why yet another Inquiry
has been appointed to investigate the circumstances of the successful
Fayed bid.
In the absence of information to the contrary,
I can only conclude that the Inquiry was set up as a result of
Tiny Rowland's remorseless campaign against the Fayeds, in which
he has not scrupled to use The Observer as his megaphone
and to flood the postbags of MPs and others with propaganda highly
insulting, not only to the Fayeds but to public figures as various
as the Sultan of Brunei and Edward Heath.
Secondly, the issues which the Inspectors appear
to have examined are wholly irrelevant to the legitimate public
policy question of competition. In particular, there appears to
have been an obsession with the family background of the Fayeds
and the source of their wealth - inquiries which would be relevant
to an application for membership of a gentlemen's club, but which
do not seem to me to have any relevance whatever to the Government's
interest in a merger or takeover.
Thirdly, the conduct of the Inquiry itself
appears to give cause for concern. Every latitude appears to have
been given to Tiny Rowland and Lonrho to produce allegations,
the substance of which have then been published, not only in
the form of the junk mail from Lonrho which we have all received,
but even in the form of a highly prejudicial television programme
broadcast on Sunday 23 July on Channel Four, without any attempt
by the DTI or the Inspectors to attempt to restrain publication.
Mr Rowland's reputation is well known. Sir Basil
Smallpiece's condemnation of him as "unfit by reason of
temperament and lack of commercial probity to be Chief Executive
of a public company" has been shared by many others, including
Sir David Tudor Price, QC and John Griffiths, QC in previous official
investigations.
I find it incredible that such weight appears
to have been given to the allegations of a man whose word has
been so untrustworthy over so many years.
I am given to understand that Lonrho's role
in the proceedings has gone further, namely that Lonrho's legal
advisers have attended interviews of witnesses allegedly unconnected
with the company.
- that Lonrho's representatives have
prompted and suggested questions to the Inspectors and even put
questions to witnesses themselves;
- that the Inspectors have drawn conclusions
on the basis of enquiries not carried out by themselves but by
Lonrho or its agents;
- that Lonrho were granted a two month
extension of time by the Inspectors to gather information about
the Fayed family background, notwithstanding that Lonrho had relentlessly
pursued the Fayeds for over two years;
- that, by contrast, the Inspectors attempted
to rush HoF's response to Lonrho's allegations with early deadlines
being set;
- that documents were provided by the
Fayeds to the Inspectors subject to an undertaking that their
contents would not be revealed to other witnesses; that those
undertakings were broken - which the Inspectors at first denied,
but later admitted when it became clear that Herbert Smith could
clearly prove their allegation;
- that procedures were agreed at the
end of May between the Inspectors and Herbert Smith and Co for
the conduct of the Inquiry, following which the Fayeds' submissions
in four weighty volumes were delivered to the Inspectors on 15
July and the Inspectors reported to you by 22 July. I understand
that Herbert Smith have written to you to complain that the Inspectors
could not conceivably have given their documents adequate consideration
in the time available, and that certain agreed procedures were
not followed - in particular, that the Inspectors:
(a) failed to hold an oral hearing following
their identification of points where there was still disagreement
and;
(b) failed to respond to reasonable questions
asked of them with regard to their provisional conclusions to
enable further submissions to be made prior to the reports being
finalised and sent to you.
In the circumstances, it is quite understandable
that the Fayeds feel that they have not been fairly treated, that
justice is not being seen to be done and that our legal system
has been turned into a tool of Tiny Rowland's vendetta.
Of course, I do not know what the Inspectors
would say in reply to these points. But, it is clear to me that
prima facie this bizarre category of events requires a
rigorous investigation in itself:
- as to how the Inquiry came to be appointed
and how the Inspectors carried out their duties.
It seems to me, on the evidence I have heard,
that the Government's stated policy has been overturned in this
case, that huge expense has been sustained by the taxpayer and
HoF, and that the Fayeds have suffered injustice and oppression.
If the Inspectors have upheld the case against
the Fayeds, I believe you ought to reject their advice to you
on grounds that the rules of natural justice have not been observed
and that a separate investigation should be held into the irregularities
listed above, with full public disclosure.
I believe that such an investigation should
be held even if the Inspectors have rejected the case against
the Fayeds and we should, in that event, never tolerate an abuse
such as this again.
29 July 1988
Exhibit 22
Facsimile from Mr Ian Greer to Mohamed
Al-Fayed
Tried to contact you earlier today without
success. Spoke to Brian Basham's office last night and today.
Agreed with Neil Hamilton four questions (faxed to you earlier
today) which have now been sent to Brian for use in tomorrow's
press. Believe it will be possible to put more questions down
next week.
Suggest you mention that I will be in contact
when you see Michael Grylls because I believe he would want to
help.
Also believe letter possible from Neil to
Chairman of CAA about Marwan flights and facilities.
Please contact me if there is anything more
you want me to do. Returning to London on Sunday.
29 March 1989
Exhibit 23
Facsimile from Mr Ian Greer to Royston
Webb
The following questions will appear on tomorrow's
Order Paper (please note additional questions).
Brian Basham alerted.
4 April 1989
PQ'S TO BE TABLED BY NEIL HAMILTON, MP
To
ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has seen the report
in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 March alleging attempts by
Lonrho to frustrate British arms sales to Kenya and if he will
make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of the Home Department
whether, given their implications for national security, he will
investigate reported links between the Lonrho subsidiary company
"Tradewinds" and the Libyan regime.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether he will investigate allegations of illicit arms dealing
with Libya by the Lonrho subsidiary company "Tradewinds".
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether foreigners who hold diplomatic passports but are not
accredited in the UK are exempted from normal entry procedures
when visiting this country.
4624 NOTICES OF QUESTIONS: 4 APRIL 1989 NO. 77
Thursday 6 April 25W
Mr Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, whether Dr Ashraf Marwan is an accredited
diplomat representing the Arab Republic of Egypt in the United
Kingdom.
NO. 77 NOTICES OF QUESTIONS: 4 APRIL 1989 4637
Friday 7 April 38W
Mr Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence,
what representations he has received on the effects of Lonrho's
attempts to frustrate British arms sales to Kenya; and if he will
make a statement.
39W Mr Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster, what information he has on the volume
of arms export business with Libya conducted by Lonrho or its
subsidiary company, Tradewinds plc.
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION
Thursday 6 April
Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, will the Foreign Secretary
confirm that Dr Ashraf Marwan is an accredited diplomat representing
the Arab Republic of Egypt in the UK?
Mr Eggar
According
to our records, Doctor Ashraf Marwan is not, nor has ever been,
an accredited diplomat representing the Arab Republic of Egypt
in the United Kingdom.
Thursday 6 April 1989 - Written No. 52
W Mr Neil Hamilton (Tatton): To ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, whether foreigners holding diplomatic
passports, but not accredited in the United Kingdom, are exempted
from normal entry procedures when visiting this country.
Mr Tim Renton: I shall reply as soon as possible.
7 April 1989 - Arms Sales (Kenya)
Mr Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
what representations he has received on the effects of Lonrho's
attempts to frustrate British arms sales to Kenya; and if he will
make a statement.
Mr Sainsbury: None.
Exhibit 24
Facsimile from Mr Ian Greer to Mohamed
Al-Fayed
<
Early Day Motion signed by Neil Hamilton
for tabling tonight.
3 May 1989
EDM
This House notes with concern the
close links between Lonrho, its subsidiary Tradewinds, Dr Ashraf
Marwan, a close friend of Col Gadaffi and the Libyan regime.
It takes account of the serious security implication and call
for an immediate investigation into the company's operations.
4236 NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 3 MAY 1989 NO. 97
809 Links Between Lonrho plc and the Libyan Regime
Mr Neil Hamilton
* 1
That this House notes with concern the
close links between Lonrho, its subsidiary Tradewinds, and Dr
Ashraf Marwan, a close friend of Colonel Gadaffi and the Libyan
regime; takes account of the serious security implication; and
calls for an immediate investigation into the company's operations.
3 May 1989
4184 NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 3 MAY 1989 NO. 97
657 Department of Trade and Industry report into
take-over of Harrods
Mr Brian Sedgemore
Mr Bill Michie
Mr Harry Barnes
Mr Martin Flannery
Mr John Cummings
Mr Keith Bradley
*33
Mr Frank Cook That this House condemns
Kleinwort Benson, Herbert Smith & Co., the Office of Fair
Trading, civil servants and the Government for their mishandling
of and naivety and negligence in dealing with the take-over of
Harrods; and calls on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
to publish the report of his Department's Inspectors into the
affair forthwith.
NO. 97 NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 3 MAY 1989 4217
738 Mr John Sweeney, Mr David Coghlan, The Observer
and Lonrho
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Max Madden
Mr Neil Hamilton
Mr Keith Bradley
Alice Mahon
Mr Jimmy Dunnachie
*8
Mr Allan Roberts Mr Frank Cook
That
this House congratulates Mr John Sweeney, Observer journalist,
who under Open File on Sunday 2 April wrote an article entitled,
Confessions of a Hi-Tech Eavesdropper; notes that this excellent
article drew on the experiences of Mr David Coghlan and on material
being broadcast on Yorkshire Television's First Tuesday documentary;
notes that Mr Coghlan invaded the privacy by phone-tapping of
a wide range of British citizens from nuclear protestors at Sizewell
to local politicians, NATO officials and employees of public utilities;
notes that Mr Coghlan also claims he did surveillance work for
many middle eastern clients and that he supplied his own home
made electronic surveillance equipment to many of his clients
including the South African government; notes that Mr Coghlan
was charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice following
the London shooting of exiled Seychelles opposition leader Mr
Gerald Hombreau; asks Mr Sweeney whether his article missed out
any matters which he feels should have been included in The Observer
article and asks Mr Sweeney whether he would be prepared to write
about such matters; believes that, if proprietorial interference
prevents publication he should request that a meeting of The
Observer's National Union of Journalists chapel be convened
so that the matter can be discussed and so as to secure the right
of a distinguished journalist such as himself to be free to write
what should be published in the public interest; and calls upon
Mr Tiny Rowland to divest himself of his interest in The Observer.
Exhibit 25
NO. 126 NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 21 JUNE 1989 5029
992 Lonrho, The Observer and Iran
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Neil Hamilton
*2
That this House understands that on or
about 24 January 1989 Mr Tiny Rowland visited Tehran accompanied
by representatives of certain South African interests; understands
Mr Rowland to be anxious to promote strategic trade between Iran
and South Africa to the profit of Lonrho; recalls that Mr Rowland
also visited Tehran in 1987 and 1988 and that in December 1987
Lonrho purchased 50 per cent. of the German company, Krupp Handel,
in what was reported as "a move which will strengthen the
United Kingdom company's links with Iran"; notes that Mr
Rowland had met "six or seven different ministers",
including the oil minister, in the Iranian regime; recognises
the importance to Mr Rowland of securing the support of the regime
for his commercial objectives; understands that the editor of
the Lonrho broadsheet, Mr Donald Trelford, travelled to Iran as
part of Mr Rowland's mission; notes that on 29 January The Observer
gave pride of place to a lengthy interview in which "the
Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, gives Donald
Trelford a rare insight into the view from Tehran"; recognises
that The Observer provided a valuable platform for the
Iranian regime; further recognises that such a platform could
be expected to render the regime well-disposed towards Lonrho;
concludes that the timing of Mr Trelford's efforts was not coincidental
and provides further evidence of the use of the paper to advance
Lonrho's commercial objectives; and calls upon Mr Tiny Rowland
to divest himself of control of The Observer.
5030 NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 21 JUNE 1989 NO. 126
993 The Observer and Mr Mark Thatcher
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Neil Hamilton
* 2
That this House notes that Mr Anthony
Howard, former editor of The Observer,
wrote in the London Review of Books on 1 June 1989 that just
before Christmas 1985 the editor of The Observer worriedly
told him that he was under some pressure from the paper's proprietor,
Mr Tiny Rowland, to publish a story implicating Mr Mark Thatcher
in the Harrods takeover; recalls that The Observer published
that story on 12 January 1986; notes that Mr Howard commented
that its publication, since it was totally unsourced and had been
through no normal journalist's checks, was rigorously opposed
by the paper's then news supremo, Magnus Linklater, as well as
by the two members of The Observer's investigative unit,
David Leigh and Paul Lashmar and that he said that "I added
my voice to theirs, urging vigilance and caution. To no avail,
however" is concerned that in an open letter of 4 July 1986
The Observer's solicitors admitted that the Mark Thatcher
allegations could not be justified and gave undertakings not
to repeat them; is concerned that on 28 October 1988 The Observer
admitted to the Court of Appeal that it could not justify any
contention that the Sultan of Brunei was involved in the Harrods
takeover; sympathises with Mr Howard's observation that the Sultan
"had been an unwitting agent in the downfall of the reputation
of a once-proud independent national newspaper"; and calls
upon Mr Tiny Rowland to divest himself of control of The Observer.
4974 NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 21 JUNE 1989 NO. 126
738 Mr John Sweeney, Mr David Coghlan, The Observer
and Lonrho
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Max Madden
Mr Neil Hamilton
Mr Keith Bradley
Alice Mahon
Mr Jimmy Dunnachie
* 10
Mr Dennis Skinner
That this House
congratulates Mr John Sweeney, Observer
Journalist, who under Open File on Sunday 2 April wrote an article
entitled, Confessions of a Hi-Tech Eavesdropper; notes that this
excellent article drew on the experiences of Mr David Coghlan
and on material being broadcast on Yorkshire Television's First
Tuesday documentary; notes that Mr Coghlan invaded the privacy
by phone-tapping of a wide range of British citizens from nuclear
protesters at Sizewell to local politicians, NATO officials and
employees of public utilities; notes that Mr Coghlan also claims
he did surveillance work for many middle eastern clients and that
he supplied his own home made electronic surveillance equipment
to many of his clients including the South African government;
notes that Mr Coghlan was charged with conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice following the London shooting of exiled Seychelles
opposition leader Mr Gerald Hombreau; asks Mr Sweeney whether
his article missed out any matters which he feels should have
been included in The Observer article and asks Mr Sweeney
whether he would be prepared to write about such matters; believes
that, if proprietorial interference prevents publication he should
request that a meeting of The Observer's National Union
of Journalists chapel be convened so that the matter can be discussed
and so as to secure the right of a distinguished journalist such
as himself to be free to write what should be published in the
public interest; and calls upon Mr Tiny Rowland to divest himself
of his interest in The Observer.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 28 JUNE 1989
992 Lonrho, The Observer and Iran
Mr
D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Neil Hamilton
Mr Harry Barnes
That
this House understands that on or about 24 January 1989 Mr Tiny
Rowland visited Tehran accompanied by representatives of certain
South African interests; understands Mr Rowland to be anxious
to promote strategic trade between Iran and South Africa to the
profit of Lonrho; recalls that Mr Rowland also visited Tehran
in 1987 and 1988 and that in December 1987 Lonrho purchased 50
per cent of the German company, Krupp Handel, in what was reported
as "a move which will strengthen the United Kingdom company's
links with Iran"; notes that Mr Rowland had met "six
or seven different ministers", including the oil minister,
in the Iranian regime; recognises the importance to Mr Rowland
of securing the support of the regime for his commercial objectives;
understands that the editor of the Lonrho broadsheet, Mr Donald
Trelford, travelled to Iran as part of Mr Rowland's mission;
notes that on 29 January The Observer gave pride of place
to a lengthy interview in which "the Iranian Foreign Minister,
Dr Ali Akbar Velayati, gives Donald Trelford a rare insight into
the view from Tehran"; recognises that The Observer
provided a valuable platform for the Iranian regime; further
recognises that such a platform could be expected to render the
regime well-disposed towards Lonrho; concludes that the timing
of Mr Trelford's efforts was not coincidental and provides further
evidence of the use of the paper to advance Lonrho's commercial
objectives; and calls upon Mr Tiny Rowland to divest himself of
control of The Observer.
993 The Observer and Mr Mark
Thatcher
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Neil Hamilton
Mr Harry Barnes
* 3
That this House notes that Mr Anthony Howard,
former editor of The Observer, wrote in the London Review
of Books on 1 June 1989 that just before Christmas 1985 the editor
of The Observer worriedly told him that he was under some
pressure from the paper's proprietor, Mr Tiny Rowland, to publish
a story implicating Mr Mark Thatcher in the Harrods takeover;
recalls that The Observer published that story on 12 January
1986; notes that Mr Howard commented that its publication, since
it was totally unsourced and had been through no normal journalist's
checks, was rigorously opposed by the paper's then news supremo,
Magnus Linklater, as well as by the two members of The Observer's
investigative unit, David Leigh and Paul Lashmar and that he said
that "I added my voice to theirs, urging vigilance and caution.
To no avail, however"; is concerned that in an open letter
of 4 July 1986 The Observer's solicitors admitted that
the Mark Thatcher allegations could not be justified and gave
undertakings not to repeat them; is concerned that on 28 October
1988 The Observer admitted to the Court of Appeal that
it could not justify any contention that the Sultan of Brunei
was involved in the Harrods takeover; sympathises with Mr Howard's
observation that the Sultan "had been an unwitting agent
in the downfall of the reputation of a once-proud independent
national newspaper"; and calls upon Mr Tiny Rowland to divest
himself of control of The Observer.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS: 28 JUNE 1989 NO. 131
738 Mr John Sweeney, Mr David Coghlan, The Observer
and Lonrho
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Max Madden
Mr Neil Hamilton
Mr Keith Bradley
Alice Mahon
Mr Jimmy Dunnachie
* 11
Mr Harry Barnes
That this House
congratulates Mr John Sweeney, The Observer
journalist, who under Open File on Sunday 2 April wrote an article
entitled, Confessions of a Hi-Tech Eavesdropper; notes that this
excellent article drew on the experiences of Mr David Coghlan
and on material being broadcast on Yorkshire Television's First
Tuesday documentary; notes that Mr Coghlan invaded the privacy
by phone-tapping of a wide range of British citizens from nuclear
protestors at Sizewell to local politicians, NATO officials and
employees of public utilities; notes that Mr Coghlan also claims
he did surveillance work for many middle eastern clients and that
he supplied his own home made electronic surveillance equipment
to many of his clients including the South African government;
notes that Mr Coghlan was charged with conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice following the London shooting of exiled Seychelles
opposition leader Mr Gerald Hombreau; asks Mr Sweeney whether
his article missed out any matters which he feels should have
been included in The Observer article and asks Mr Sweeney
whether he would be prepared to write about such matters; believes
that, if proprietorial interference prevents publication he should
request that a meeting of The Observer's National Union
of Journalists chapel be convened so that the matter can be discussed
and so as to secure the right of a distinguished journalist such
as himself to be free to write what should be published in the
public interest; and calls upon Mr Tiny Rowland to divest himself
of his interest in The Observer.
748 Conduct of Sir Edward Du Cann
Mr D N Campbell-Savours
Mr Eddie Loyden
Mr Chris Mullin
Mr Harry Barnes
* 4
That
this House notes the summons 1989 B Number 576 in the High Court
of Justice Queen's Bench Division issued from the Central Office
of the High Court on 24 January 1989 on behalf of Boodle Hatfield
(a firm) against Sir Edward Dillon Lott Du Cann; notes that Sir
Edward Du Cann, KBE, Privy Councillor, is also Group Chairman
of Lonrho; notes that the plaintiff claims that Sir Edward issued
a cheque for £25,000 dated 31 December 1988 drawn upon the
TSB Bank England and Wales plc, 25 Fore Street, Taunton, Somerset,
which was dishonoured on 6 January 1989 and 10 January 1989 and
that, despite due notice having been given by a letter, of 9
January, to the defendant, he did not pay the said cheque; further
notes that the plaintiff's particulars of claim are for the principal
sum due of £25,000 interest at 15 per cent per annum from
6 January to 24 January of £29.28 and a daily rate thereafter
of £10.27 until payment of judgment; notes similar circumstances
concerning Seaandland Credit; asks Sir Edward, whether having
served as a Minister, if only of junior rank, in a former Conservative
Government, he feels that such practices are becoming of a person
who has been honoured as a KBE and Privy Councillor and who is
chairman of a public company; asks Sir Edward to what extent he
feels his business association with Lonrho over recent years
has influenced the conduct of his own business affairs; and asks
Tiny Rowland to divest himself of control of The Observer.
Exhibit 26
NO. 161 NOTICES OF QUESTIONS: 26 OCTOBER 1989
6389
136W. Mr Teddy Taylor
(Southend East): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
if the Serious Fraud Squad have completed their inquiries into
the issues raised in the report of inspectors into the acquisition
of House of Fraser, and when he now expects to publish the report.
NOTICES OF QUESTIONS: 29 NOVEMBER 1989 529
91. Mr Teddy Taylor (Southend East): To ask
the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what is his policy
on publishing the House of Fraser Report: (a) once legal proceedings
arising out of it are completed and (b) after the Serious Fraud
Squad indicate that no prosecutions are appropriate; and if he
will make a statement.
19. Mr Teddy Taylor (Southend East): To ask
Mr Attorney General, if the Serious Fraud Squad has now completed
its investigations into the implications of the House of Fraser
Report.
Exhibit 27
Letter from Mr Neil Hamilton to Rt
Hon Douglas Hurd, CBE, MP, Home Secretary
I am deeply concerned by press reports referring
to the activities of Ahmed Gadafadam, until recently a board
member of the Aircraft Cargo Firm "Tradewinds", a Lonrho
subsidiary. I understand that Ahmed Gadafadam is a cousin of
Colonel Gadaffi, and brother of Said Gadafadam, Head of Libyan
Intelligence. I believe that the Gadafadam link with the Libyan
regime and the press allegations of illicit arms dealing must
warrant the closest examination.
My attention has been drawn to the regular
use by Lonrho of the company jet to and from Libya. It has been
suggested that Mr Gadafadam and Dr Ashraf Marwan, both close
associates of Mr Rowland, are regular passengers. I believe that
Dr Marwan, an Egyptian citizen, holds a diplomatic passport with
the rank of Ambassador. He is, I believe, also a close friend
and associate of Colonel Gadaffi. Lonrho's involvement with Libya
and arms dealing was recently reported in the Sunday Telegraph,
March 5th, when it was suggested that Lonrho was seeking to block
British arms sales to traditionally pro-British countries.
The Libyan regime has made little secret of
its antipathy towards Great Britain. I strongly believe that an
urgent investigation should be conducted into Mr Tiny Rowland's
associations with Colonel Gadaffi, together with any links which
he, or his subsidiary companies, may have with the regime.
21 March 1989
Exhibit 29
Consolidated pursuant to order of Sir Michael Davie:
dated 28 April 1995
1994-H-No-1654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN
(1)
NEIL HAMILTON
Plaintiff
and
(1) DAVID HENCKE
(2) PETER PRESTON
(3) GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
Defendants
1994-G-No-1776
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN
(1)
IAN GREER
(2) IAN GREER ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Plaintiffs
and
(1)
DAVID HENCKE
(2) PETER PRESTON
(3) GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
Defendants
WITNESS STATEMENT OFFRANK KLEIN
I, Frank Klein, of Hotel Ritz, 15,
Place VendoÃme, 75041 Paris, will say
as follows:
1. I joined the Ritz on 6 May 1979 as Managing
Director, becoming President in 1986, which is the position I
currently hold. My role encompasses all matters concerning the
Hotel and ultimately I am responsible for the day to day running
and management, reporting directly to Mr Al-Fayed.
2. Mr Al-Fayed called me to ask me to look after
Mr and Mrs Hamilton when they arrived at the Ritz. The room which
I assigned to the Hamiltons was an extremely luxurious room comprising
a bedroom, bathroom, sitting room area overlooking the garden.
The rate for the room at that time was ff2,460 per night.
3. Mr and Mrs Hamilton arrived some time in
the afternoon on 8 September 1987 and I met them and welcomed
them to the Ritz. I did not see Mr and Mrs Hamilton again for
the rest of their stay but placed my chauffeur driven, dark green
Mercedes 350 SEL limousine at their disposal. I understand that
they used it on two or three occasions to visit areas in Paris.
4. The Hamiltons stayed until the morning of
14 September and the bill for extras was ff21,104.45 in addition
to the accommodation (ff14,760). Even for a hotel such as the
Ritz, this is a fairly large bill. I have a good memory as to
the level of prices charged by the hotel in 1987, such as those
for food and drinks. However, without reference to the actual
menus for those days which are no longer in existence, my comments
are based on recollection and my expert opinion. Certainly if
I were staying as a guest of someone else, I would consider it
appropriate to eat out some times during my trip so as not to
be seen to be taking advantage of their hospitality. In fact,
Mr Hamilton and his wife ate absolutely every meal in the hotel
and charged all sorts of extras, such as laundry, parking, stamps,
newspapers and telephone charges to Mr Al-Fayed. The nature and
extent of the charges is clear from the itemised bill.[9]
5. 8/9/87 The Cocktail Room is the bar in the hotel.
The words "Divers Etage Cuisine" refer to room service.
Certain telephone charges were billed to the room and also dinner
in the Espadon Restaurant. This is the Ritz's formal restaurant
and it has two Michelin Stars. At lunch time there was a set menu
in the Espadon, in the evening it was aÁ la Carte. The
charges for their evening meal are approximately £230. I
consider this to be expensive, and to reach that amount Mr and
Mrs Hamilton must have ordered a good bottle of wine or had some
of the more expensive items on the menu. The charge that represents
parking relates to the underground car park situated in the middle
of the Place VendoÃme. I assume that Mr Hamilton drove
to Paris and left his car for the duration of his stay at the
Ritz in the car park. This car parking charge was added to his
bill.
6. 9/9/87 The
Hamiltons started their day with "Petit Dejeuner Etage"
which is breakfast in their room. It is my recollection that
in 1987, the continental breakfast cost about ff92 per person
and would have consisted of tea, coffee or chocolate, freshly
squeezed juice and a basket of fresh croissants. The full American
breakfast was ff167. The breakfast that the Hamiltons therefore
took in their room must have included some additional items,
such as eggs, sausages, yoghurts or fresh fruit. Two items are
registered to the mini-bar in the room that day, one charge is
in the region of £34. In my experience this is unlikely to
relate simply to bottled water or fruit juice, but is likely
to have included spirits, a small bottle of wine or champagne.
7. From the bill, it is clear that the Hamiltons
also took lunch at the Espadon Restaurant. The level of the charge
leads me to believe that it would have related to a light lunch.
The bill then includes the sum for newspapers, (Journaux) and
laundry approximately £33, which relates to (Laverie Teinturerie).
Further telephone charges were incurred that day and the couple
finished their evening with a meal at the Espadon. Again, the
bill is substantial, in the region of £100 per head. A further
parking charge is added to the bill.
8. 10/9/87 The charge for the
room service breakfast is approximately £20 a head. To amount
to this charge, this breakfast would have consisted of both hot
and cold food including eggs cooked in a variety of ways, bacon
or sausages and accompanied also by fresh juice and yoghurt or
fruit. It is likely to have also included champagne. This is
a substantial breakfast. The bill records that newspapers were
charged to the room and a further charge to room service "petit
dejeuner etage". The "petit dejeuner etage" menu
runs from 7 am until noon. I assume that this was some type of
sandwich or snack. There is a further charge for room service.
9. The item marked "Frais Chauffeur"
represents a drivers fee and would be charged where a driver was
sent at the request of the Hamiltons to collect or deliver an
item. The word "Courses" refers to an errand such as
a purchase from a chemist, which is made by the hotel's concierge
staff on behalf of the guest. "Repas Etages" represents
a further meal on room service to the value of approximately £50
and this is likely to have been lunch. "Divers Etage Cave"
would relate to a drink on room service, possibly a bottle of
wine or beer and "Repas Etage" relates to further room
service, perhaps a sandwich or afternoon tea. The Hamiltons have
also charged stamps, further mini bar charges, telephone calls
and the parking fee to their room bill that day. The evening
finished with a further meal in the Restaurant Espadon in the
sum of approximately £213. By my recollection this would
have given them an extremely delicious meal and an expensive bottle
of wine.
10. 11/9/87 The Hamiltons started
their day with breakfast in their room. This would appear to be
an American breakfast, rather than simply a continental breakfast,
as the charge is in the region of £16 a head. Again newspapers,
stamps and telephone calls were charged to the room and a further
meal in the evening in the Espadon. A parking fee for the day
was also charged.
11. 12/9/87 Breakfast on this day
appears to be an American breakfast with possibly champagne in
addition, as the charge was almost £25 a head. This would
have included freshly squeezed juice, fruits and yoghurt, eggs,
cheese and ham and brioche, fresh rolls and croissants. Newspapers
and mini-bar charges amount to £63 and the room was also
charged with a further fee for dry-cleaning. The bill clearly
shows that the Hamiltons had lunch in the Espadon Restaurant.
Quite clearly they did not partake of the set menu which was available
at that time, but the aÁ la carte and they ran up a substantial
bill. The charges for the rest of that day consist of a further
room service meal, newspapers, mini-bar and telephone charges.
The Hamiltons ate yet again in the Espadon that evening, furthermore
taking advantage of Mr Al-Fayed's hospitality.
12. On the morning of 14 September, the Hamiltons
appear to have had a light breakfast, and then after charging
their newspapers, telephone calls and mini-bar, left the hotel.
I cannot recall saying farewell to the Hamiltons at the end of
their stay.
13. Sometime after this visit, I was handed
a message by the hotel's reservations department. The message
said that the Hamiltons or someone on their behalf had rung to
say that they would be in Paris again and wanted to stay at the
Ritz. I immediately telephoned Mr Al-Fayed at his office in London
and passed on the message. He expressed himself to be very shocked
at such a request and told me, in no uncertain terms, that I should
tell the Hamiltons that the hotel was fully booked. I telephoned
my reservations departments and instructed them to call whoever
had left the message and inform them that the hotel was fully
booked. I heard no more from the Hamiltons after that time.
14. My overall impression of Mr and Mrs Hamilton
was that their stay was an abuse of Mr Al-Fayed's hospitality.
I would have expected them to at least take some of their meals
outside the hotel, perhaps lunch or afternoon tea, if not more
than one evening meal at a local bistro or restaurant. Furthermore,
to charge such small items as stamps, errands and laundry to
the room bill, knowing that someone else was picking up the tab,
is in my view outrageous.
Frank Klein
30 September 1996
9 Not printed. Back
| 
