Tycoon Albert Gubay’s former right-hand man has lost a high court claim against the estate of the late millionaire.

Peter Willers claimed Mr Gubay maliciously took litigation against him after he acrimoniously parted company with the Anglo Group in 2009.

In a judgment handed down at London’s High Courts of Justice, Mrs Justice Rose ruled Mr Willers had failed in his case against the executors of the estate of the island-based businessman, who died in 2016.

Mr Willers had worked for Mr Gubay for many years and was director of several companies in the Anglo Group including fitness gym chain Total Fitness UK.

He described him as an ’autocratic and intimidating’ business leader. Having been Mr Gubay’s ’right-hand man’, he alleged the tycoon turned against him in 2009 and instigated many vindictive and wholly unjustified measures against him.

One of these, he contended, was the so-called ’Langstone Action’. Total Fitness changed its named to Langstone Leisure Ltd after it was sold in 2004.

Langstone had been ordered to pay the substantial legal costs of an ill-fated action against a company that installed defective swimming pool covers in some of the Total Fitness gyms.

In 2010, Langstone brought proceedings against Mr Willers, claiming he had been in breach of his fiduciary duties as director of Total Fitness at the time of the dispute over the defective swimming pools.

That action dragged on and was discontinued in 2013. But Mr Willers was left with a significant amount of costs he said he was liable to pay his former legal team over the Langstone Action.

He issued a claim against Mr Gubay alleging he had been maliciously prosecuted against.

The claim was initially struck out but then allowed to proceed following an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr Willers claimed damages for loss of earnings and said his health had suffered as a result of having to defend himself. Following Mr Gubay’s death, the defence of claim has been continued by the executors of the estate.

In his evidence, Mr Willers claimed Mr Gubay had never intended to bring the Langstone Action to trial for fear of an HMRC investigation into the tax status of the Anglo Group.

But Mrs Justice Rose said there was no evidence that fear of Mr Willers contacting HMRC and triggering a tax investigation had ever influenced Mr Gubay’s behaviour.

Ruling that the claim had failed, she concluded Langstone and Mr Gubay had a genuine belief there was a reasonable cause to bring the Langstone Action.

Directors had been neither forced, instructed or misled by Mr Gubay to bring the action.