The executors of the late Albert Gubay’s estate have failed in their appeal to have Peter Willers found in contempt of court.

Mr Willers had worked for Mr Gubay for many years and was director of several companies in the Anglo Group until he had an acrimonious split from the group in 2009.

First Deemster Andrew Corlett dismissed the application for Mr Willers to be found in contempt, saying he didn’t believe the executors had made out their case to the ’requisite standard’.

The executors of the estate tried to argue that Mr Willers had ’breached an undertaking which he gave to the court on December 19, 2014, following the making of an order dated December 16, 2014’.

They claimed argued that Mr Willers had agreed not to ’dissipate any of his assets, real or personal, so as to defeat or avoid paying to the claimant (then Mr Gubay) any final costs payable by him to the claimant’.

The nature of that alleged contempt came from Mr Willers entering into a legal charge with his English solicitors De Cruz Ltd (De Cruz).

It is said that he charged to De Cruz all of his interest in Ballagawne Farm, Baldrine, without giving Mr Gubay any notice.

Deemster Corlett said in his judgment the Dr Cruz charge took place in 2018.

Mr Willers said this was ’in order to secure some of his indebtedness to De Cruz Solicitors incurred in respect of legal fees’.

The charge took over his 50% of Ballagawne Farm which he owned jointly with his wife.

The executors were represented by Alan Gough who said that the charge was ’transparent’ it was an ’ill judged attempt to circumvent Mr Willers’ undertaking’.

However, Deemster Corlett did not agree and dismissed the attempt to find Mr Willers in contempt.

The First Deemster said that the order ’did not in terms oblige Mr Willers to do anything, it simply recorded that he was intending to provide an undertaking’.

He added: ’Having given the matter careful consideration, I find it impossible to make a finding of contempt of court in circumstances where the document alleged to constitute evidence of breach of an undertaking specifically refers to that undertaking and arguably makes its operation subject to compliance therewith.’

Deemster Corlett also made it clear that Mr Willers had made his undertaking with De Cruz clear as it was recorded on the land registry, which is a public document, the executors became aware of the charge soon after it occurred.

He stated that he did not entirely agree with Mr Willers’ submissions to the court.

But Deemster Corlett added that Mr Willers ’has satisfied me that he has cast sufficient ambiguity and doubt on the allegations raised by the executors as to acquit him of the allegations of contempt of court’.