Executors of the late Albert Gubay say they hope the successful conclusion of an eight year law suit will allow them to focus their energies on his charitable legacy.

The high court in Douglas this week dismissed all but one of the six claims made against millionaire businessman Mr Gubay by his former right hand man Peter Willers.

Mr Willers had claimed many millions of pounds but succeeded only in being awarded £13,166 which related to an admitted administrative error.

In a statement, the Albert Gubay Foundation said: ’The executors are hopeful that this protracted and wasteful litigation is now at an end and they can fulfil their obligations to transfer the maximum possible amount to Albert Gubay’s charitable arrangements.

’They want to concentrate their efforts on working with the other trustees to maximize the funds finding their way to good causes.

’Since Albert Gubay’s death in 2016, grants in excess of £7m have already been provided for deserving causes. Hopefully, with the end of this litigation, the executors can concentrate more on this worthwhile work.’

In the high court, Deemster Andrew Corlett described the breakdown of the relationship between Mr Gubay and Mr Willers as ’akin to a particularly bitter divorce’.

Mr Willers’ claims were for payment he said he was entitled to from the sale of the Mount Murray development and the sale of the Total Fitness chain of health clubs.

He claimed £1.6m he said should have been advanced to him as part of a letter of wishes and he also claimed loss of earnings and benefits, saying he had been promised he could hold the position of managing director and in-house legal counsel for as long as he wanted.

In his evidence to the court, Mr Gubay said he had dismissed Mr Willers for alleged gross misconduct.

Mr Willers has taken a claim for unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.

In his judgment, Deemster Corlett said Mr Gubay had treated Mr Willers in a ’quite appalling manner’ in engineering his dismissal and applying ’every possible improper means’ to put pressure on him, including accessing his bank account and endeavouring to freeze his pension fund.

’I have no doubt that Mr Gubay developed what Mr Willers described as paranoid obsessions’, said the Deemster. ’He became obsessed with the notion that Mr Willers was overspending and might well be missappropriating funds. There was no evidence to support there being any basis for Mr Gubay’s paranoia.’

’He also appears to have misled the Mount Murray inquiry as to his role in that project,’ he added. But the Deemster rejected all but one of the claims, ruling variously they lacked credibility, were unsupported by evidence or were based on ’inherently vague and inconsistent expressions of intention’.