FINANCIER DEREK Quinlan had to maintain his lifestyle as “a successful investor” to ensure he was not exploited when he sold off his assets, the high court in London has been told.

The declaration was made by Mr Quinlan’s associate, Gerry Murphy, who began giving his evidence in a case taken by property developer Patrick McKillen.

Mr McKillen alleges that Mr Quinlan conspired with the billionaire Barclay brothers, David and Frederick, to prevent Mr McKillen controlling the luxury London hotels Claridges, the Connaught and the Berkeley.

Mr Quinlan has been accused by Mr McKillen and by the National Asset Management Agency of living an extravagant lifestyle after he ran into financial trouble.

However, Mr Murphy said the financier “took the view that in order to maximise the value of his various interests, it was vital that he did not look like a distressed seller.

“On that basis it was clear that style was as important as substance and it was vital that Mr Quinlan maintained his lifestyle as a successful investor.

“By doing so he was not only maximising the price of his own shares but also the value of other investors’ shares [in Coroin, the holding company that owned the hotels],” said Mr Murphy.

Mr Murphy said he felt it was his duty to maintain relations between Mr Quinlan, Mr McKillen and the other shareholders.

“Oftentimes I saw it as my role to save both Mr Quinlan and Mr McKillen from themselves. For example, Mr Quinlan is a larger-than-life, fun-loving and charismatic individual who was responsible for creating an enormous high-end property empire as a hugely successful property investor.

“Mr McKillen was also a successful property investor. In each case, their approach could get them into difficulties and I thought I should help as their honest broker,” Mr Murphy went on.

“That did require me to show empathy with more than just Mr Quinlan’s position.”

Mr Quinlan, he said, had demonstrated his commitment to the hotels when he bought part of the bloc of shares sold by one of the original investors in the hotel syndicate, Kyran McLaughlin, in August 2009.

“This purchase cost Mr Quinlan about £1.9 million in cash and was not a decision taken lightly; it was painful, given that Mr Quinlan was cash-strapped, but it demonstrated to me just how committed and involved Mr Quinlan was in relation to it [Coroin],” he said.

Following the creation of the National Asset Management, it was clear Mr Quinlan’s debts were going to be transferred to it – a fact that concerned the other shareholders.

However, Mr Murphy said Mr McKillen was in the same position: “As such it was unfair that he was singling out Mr Quinlan as the sole cause of its [Coroin’s] debt going to Nama.”

The decision of the company’s board in January 2010 to stop paying Mr Quinlan management fees was an attempt to “punish him economically”, Mr Murphy claimed.

The Barclay brothers took control of Mr Quinlan’s 25 per cent stake last year, but Mr Quinlan, in his cross-examination yesterday, insisted he was still the beneficial owner of the shares.

Defending Mr Quinlan, Mr Murphy said the financier stopped attending board meetings for months until he finally resigned in May last year because the other directors “marginalised and embarrassed him”.

“Mr Quinlan, who does not like conflict, reacted badly to this turn of events and stopped attending company meetings,” said Mr Murphy.

He added: “Each of the shareholders appeared to have a different agenda at this time.”

He accepted that a loan of €500,000 in late 2010 to Mr Quinlan from the Barclays required the “quid pro quo” that Mr Quinlan would tell them first if he was going to sell his shares.

However, Mr Murphy insisted that the loan was not conditional on him actually selling them the shares, because he said both he and Mr Quinlan did not then believe that the Barclays would offer enough.