AN acrimonious dispute over millions of pounds in alleged unpaid debts and bonus payments between the owner of developer Dandara and its former Jersey managing director surfaced in the Royal Court yesterday.
The hearing, before the Deputy Bailiff, Robert MacRae, saw lawyers for Dan Tynan lock horns with counsel for Martin Clancy, the latest juncture in a legal battle which began when Mr Clancy, the public face of the developer in the Island, was allegedly forced out of the business he has run in Jersey since 2013.
As well as lifting the lid on the bitter row, the case revealed the vast sums of money which Mr Clancy says have been made by the Dandara group, which develops property in Jersey, the Isle of Man and across the UK.
Mr MacRae read out extracts from a document put before the court by Mr Clancy which alleged that the group as a whole made pre-tax profits of more than £560 million on a turnover of around £2.8 billion pounds between 2010 and 2023 – and allegedly paid around 3.7% tax during that period.
Mr Tynan says the figures are a fiction, arguing that his former right-hand man in Jersey was not privy to group figures and that he had misused company data.
Mr Clancy says that his former employer owes him £10 million in unpaid “loyalty” bonuses. In response, Advocate Niall MacDonald, acting for Dandara, said that Mr Clancy was “a fantasist” who would say anything to further his financial ambitions. Mr Clancy’s lawyer dismissed Mr Tynan as “a bully” who was trying to grind down his former employee.
Mr MacDonald argued that Mr Clancy actually owed the company £6.3 million he allegedly borrowed from the company, a sum Mr Clancy says was given to him against the bonus payments that he was owed.
In documents submitted to the court, he claims that Mr Tynan agreed to pay him £5 million as a loyalty bonus to mark his ten-year anniversary as managing director (he had been with Dandara since 1991), but that that promise was increased to £10 million then deferred until January 2025.
The hearing shone a light on the inner workings of a company which has dominated the development market for a generation and has been a lightning rod for public criticism.
Mr Clancy said that he and Mr Tynan met regularly and exchanged emails about the bonus payments he says that he is owed. He put before the court emails he had sent Mr Tynan requesting that he could borrow money from the company, which employs around 1,400 people across multiple jurisdictions, as down payments against the owed bonuses. In one email, which referred to such a request, Mr Tynan responded by saying: “Sure, Martin.”
The Deputy Bailiff, who was sitting alone, asked Advocate MacDonald whether he considered it was odd that Mr Tynan did not question the reference to a bonus, which he says was never agreed, when approving the loan. Advocate MacDonald, who had previously told the court that there were no bonuses and that they were the invention of a fantasist, responded by saying that no amounts had been agreed.
He added that Mr Clancy had abused his position as managing director over many years and “is prepared to say anything” to advance his financial ambitions.
This week’s hearing was convened as Mr Tynan was seeking a court order preventing Mr Clancy from dispersing his assets, estimated to be about £4 million from the sale of a property in St Brelade, in any way which would frustrate any award by the court should Mr Tynan win at trial. The application for a court order was rejected yesterday.
Advocate MacDonald said that Mr Clancy was seeking to invest in a property in St Clement with his wife, and his client was concerned that if the property was in her name, it would not be available to meet any ensuing court order. Advocate MacDonald said that Mr Clancy owed more than the value of his assets and would therefore be declared en désastre, a Jersey legal phrase akin to bankruptcy, if he lost.
Advocate Marcus Pallot, representing Mr Clancy, said the hearing was just the latest in a campaign to grind his client down.
The vast majority of Dandara’s profits, he said, had gone to Mr Tynan, whom he characterised as a “bully” who wanted to keep control over Mr Clancy.
Referring to the casual tone of some of the conversations between Mr Tynan and Mr Clancy, he said: “This is the way it was done. Dan Tynan and Martin Clancy met and spoke to each other. This isn’t the case that we’ve got a Walter Mitty in our midst.”
Mr Clancy, he said, wanted to use the money to buy a property for himself and his wife, with space for extended family to live or visit.
Advocate Pallot added that it was “simply not true” that no bonus was agreed.
