A Freedom of Information request has revealed that external legal costs, ultimately paid by the taxpayer, increased by a further £70,000 after July 2025, when they were revealed to have hit six figures.
Deputy Mark Helyar, a long-time critic of the way the affair was handled, including going through the courts, said he doubted that the States recovered any of its costs.
‘There were no grounds for it based on the States’ conduct of the case,’ he said. ‘They had no reasonable prospect of recovering costs in court because there was no resistance to eviction, only to the length of stay, which could have been agreed outside court.’
He added that a politician should have been involved in mediation, in order for there to be someone accountable for the decision-making.
‘This is about weighing the benefits of settlement against the risk and significant public cost involved,’ he said. ‘This is a classic example of what happens when someone is allowed to litigate using someone else’s money – the public’s. This kind of use of delegated authority in my view by the civil service has to be curtailed.
‘Thank goodness P&R stepped in and took the decision-making away from the civil servants and settled the case, or even more money would have been wasted.
‘I will not hold my breath waiting to see if action will be taken against whoever is responsible.’
The dispute started nearly two years ago when the lease for the cafe was put out to tender, despite the current tenants Belmiro de Freitas and his partner Manuela Walter having run the cafe for more than 20 years.
When the lease was awarded to another company, Mr de Freitas and Ms Walter refused to move out.
The States Property Unit started eviction proceedings but in September last year the Royal Court granted the tenants a three-year stay of eviction.
P&R then started legal proceedings to recover costs, but earlier this month it was announced that the States and the cafe tenants had come to an agreement.
P&R said the £170,000 had been fully accommodated within existing budgets.
‘External legal expertise was engaged in line with standard practice where the Law Officers’ Chambers does not have sufficient capacity available,’ it said.
‘The committee is pleased that the remaining matters relating to costs have now been resolved amicably, and importantly, without the need for any further court involvement.’
The FOI also asked if any portion of the legal costs had been recovered, but P&R said this could not be revealed as the terms of the settlement were confidential.
You need to be logged in to comment.