Property tycoon Nick Candy is suing a former friend whose wife filmed him being ‘drunk and embarrassing’ on a holiday and did not delete all the video when asked.
Mr Candy ‘engaged in some embarrassing behaviour when heavily intoxicated’ on the party island of Ibiza on a summer’s evening in 2010, said judge Mr Justice Warby.
One of his holiday companions, Emma Hollyoake – wife of Mr Candy’s former business associate, Mark Hollyoake – captured his humiliation on her smartphone.
Property tycoon Nick Candy (left, with his wife Holly Valance in 2015) is suing Emma and Mark Hollyoake (right, in February), alleging breach of privacy and data protection laws
The next day, Mr Candy asked her to erase the footage from her phone’s memory – and some of the recordings were deleted but others ‘survived’, a court heard.
Seven years later Mr Candy, who is married to Holly Valance, is now suing the couple and three other businessmen, alleging breach of privacy and data protection laws.
He claims all five ‘shared an intention and participated in a scheme to intimidate him in the context of a business dispute by deploying the recording against him’.
He wants an injunction, forcing erasure of the footage, a ban on its dissemination to others and full disclosure of the identities of those who have or may have seen it.
(From left) Holly Valance, Nick Candy, his brother Christian Candy and his sister-in-law Emily Crompton attend the launch of One Hyde Park: The Residences in London in January 2011
However, the Hollyoakes and the other defendants say Mr Candy’s case against them is ‘unreasonably vague and incoherent’.
Christian and Nick Candy attend the Berkeley Square Ball in London in September 2007
They argue they have made ‘concessions and offers’ which meet all Mr Candy’s demands and he is responsible for ‘a grossly disproportionate piece of litigation’.
Mr Justice Warby found that Mr Candy had failed to comply with a court order requiring him to disclose full information in support of his claim.
Some of the information provided was ‘fudged’ and ‘muddled’, but the judge refused to strike out Mr Candy’s claim without a full hearing.
He said of the tycoon’s case: ‘I am not convinced that it is manifestly hopeless.’
Although ‘very much at the margins’, it was arguable that ‘silly behaviour on a private occasion’ is covered by privacy laws, the judge ruled.
Mr Candy was allowed to make some amendments to his case, while others were refused.
And the judge said it was ‘undeniable’ that the five defendants had emerged from the pre-trial skirmish ‘substantially the victors’. No date was set for the full hearing of Mr Candy’s case.