Multimillionaire ex-Barclays banker WINS £50,000 court fight against Kent CCTV fitter who arranged for his French Riviera holiday villa to be burgled ‘as an act of spite’ over £8,000 unpaid invoice
- Banker Ivan Ritossa and wife Marina won £50,000 in court case with tradesman
- Bruce Pearce was hired to install security system at their Cote d’Azur property
- They claimed he orchestrated villa to be broken into ‘as an act of spite’ in 2019
- Couple sued Mr Pearce and his company for over £58k, plus their lawyers’ costs
- Judge awarded Mr Pearce £3k for unpaid invoice to be offset against damages
A tradesman has been ordered to pay a top Barclays banker more than £50,000 after he arranged for his multimillion-pound French Riviera villa to be burgled over an unpaid £8,000 bill.
Ivan Ritossa and his lawyer wife Marina said Bruce Pearce had arranged for their sprawling holiday villa in the Cote d’Azur to be broken into ‘as an act of spite’ in November 2019.
The couple, whose main home is a £10million Chelsea mansion, claimed the Sidcup-based CCTV installer felt he had been ‘shafted’ over his bill after putting in a security system at their holiday home.
Central London County Court heard that after being hired to install the security system at their villa in exclusive celebrity hangout St Jean Cap Ferrat, Mr Pearce organised or carried out a burglary himself, having developed an ‘irrational animosity’ towards Mrs Ritossa.
The couple sued Mr Pearce and his company Elegant Integration Ltd for £58,592.43 in damages, plus lawyers’ costs of over £145,000.
Mr Pearce denied the ‘outlandish and speculative’ claim and countersued for payment of his £7,820.16 final invoice.
Judge David Saunders has now awarded Mr Pearce just over £3,000 in relation to his unpaid bills, but ordered him to pay his clients over £50,000 in damages – plus their lawyer costs – after finding on the balance of probabilities that he was behind the burglary.
A former senior executive at Barclays, Mr Ritossa carved out a career as one of the world’s top bankers and has been credited with transforming and modernising Barclays’ foreign exchange arm.
The couple, who live in a £10m London townhouse in exclusive Carlyle Square, once owned one of Australia’s most expensive houses, a beachside mansion in Sydney valued at $45m a decade ago.
The couple, whose main home is a £10m Chelsea mansion, claimed the Sidcup-based CCTV installer (pictured) felt he had been ‘shafted’ over his bill after putting in a security system at their holiday home
Ivan Ritossa, who is one of the world’s top bankers, (left) and his lawyer wife Marina (right) claimed Bruce Pearce had arranged for their sprawling holiday villa in the Cote d’Azur in France to be broken into ‘as an act of spite’ on November 30, 2019
Central London County Court heard that after being hired to install the security system at their villa in exclusive celebrity hangout St Jean Cap Ferrat (pictured), Mr Pearce organised or carried out a burglary himself, having developed an ‘irrational animosity’ towards Mrs Ritossa following clashes over his bills
The couple’s barrister, James Wibberley, told Judge David Saunders that the row centred on their holiday home, L’Aniram du Cap, in St Jean Cap Ferrat, France.
The property on the Cote d’Azur boasts extensive grounds, a pool, a main house and separate cottage, where the family are looked after by three members of staff when they visit, Mrs Ritossa told the court.
Mr Wibberley told the court that there was ‘a break-in at the claimants’ property in France over the weekend of 30 November 2019 where the security system and other items supplied and/or installed by the defendants were damaged and/or stolen.’
‘The claimants believe that the break-in was perpetrated by – or on behalf of – the defendants as an act of spite following Mrs Ritossa’s refusal to pay Mr Pearce’s final invoices,’ he explained.
He told the judge that, after hiring Mr Pearce in 2018 to install the security system, relations ‘deteriorated’, with Mrs Ritossa complaining the work had not been completed and the system did not function correctly.
Mr Pearce for his part refused to carry out any more work until he had been paid up front.
In November 2019, the break-in occurred and Mr Pearce emailed the couple shortly afterwards, saying he would not be doing any more work for them.
The barrister told the judge that the burglary involved ‘the disabling and removal of the security system, door entry system and Sonance speakers supplied and/or installed by the defendants’.
‘Nothing was taken except items installed by Mr Pearce,’ he said.
‘The intruder was also able to remotely access, disable and delete the library of CCTV recordings.
‘The claimants believe that the break-in was committed by Mr Pearce and/or a person or persons acting under his direction.
‘It is the claimants’ case that Mr Pearce was the only person capable of erasing the direct evidence of the perpetrator committing the break in.’
The court heard that when Mr Pearce was informed what had happened ‘he did not make any enquiry as to what exactly had happened or seek to contact Marina Ritossa (pictured) immediately or in any way to offer help. In short, he did nothing’
Rowan Pennington-Benton, representing Mr Pearce, denied the claim, saying that there was no direct evidence to suggest Mr Pearce was behind the raid.
‘Mr Pearce vehemently and wholeheartedly denies this and views this claim as an unmeritorious, intimidatory tactic by wealthy property owners who have wrongly formed the view that he has broken into their property,’ he said.
‘He understands they are angry but maintains that they are simply wrong and should not have pursued him in this way. Mr Pearce is a hard-working trader of modest means.
‘It is incredible and implausible that Mr Pearce engineered a complicated intrusion and burglary in a foreign country over an unpaid invoice,’ he said.
But ruling in favour of the couple, Judge Saunders said: ‘In the usual course of events, and indeed specifically in relation to this case, the claimants have an uphill task in discharging the burden that is upon them in circumstances where, as they accept, there is no direct evidence of the defendants’ involvement in the burglary.’
But he went on to say that the evidence showed ‘that the equipment stolen and damaged at the property was solely that installed by the defendants, nothing else was taken, and that the wires linking the cameras were neatly cut,’ suggesting ‘this was carried out by someone upset with the Ritossas rather than being a straightforward burglary’.
When he was informed what had happened, ‘despite being made aware of a significant problem involving a major customer, Mr Pearce did not actively participate in trying to resolve the problem, simply saying ‘OMG, that’s s**t’.
‘He did not make any enquiry as to what exactly had happened or seek to contact Mrs Ritossa immediately or in any way to offer help. In short, he did nothing.’
Mr Pearce’s ‘surprising lack of interest’ in the break in showed an attitude which the judge said ‘is consistent with the claimants’ theory that he was, by this time, fully aware of the break in and was keeping out of sight.’
‘I am also surprised that the defendants have not produced any evidence – apart from that of Mr Pearce himself – to rebut any suggestion that he was capable of carrying out or instructing a burglary during the weekend of the 30th November 2019.
‘For example, he could have obtained witness statements from neighbours, friends, or anyone he was in contact with during that weekend to show that he was otherwise engaged. There is nothing.
‘No one has been able to answer the all-encompassing question of why only the CCTV and related equipment was stolen and nothing else. In that respect, it is also notable that a significant and expensive wine store, which I accept was unlocked, as described by Mrs Ritossa, was left untouched together with a large set of binoculars looking out to sea. No one entered the property itself.
‘It is, of course, a possibility that these were intruders who were disturbed and that they fled the scene in fear of being discovered, but in my view that is a less likely scenario for the reasons set out above.
‘The defendants started this trial in a relatively strong position in that there is no direct evidence that they, or anyone instructed by them, carried out the burglary.
‘I can, in the usual course of events, accept that sometimes events happen by coincidence.
‘However, in this case, there is more than one coincidence. In fact, there are several and they are all appear to be linked.
‘The evidence leads me to conclude that, in so far as the events of the burglary are concerned, it is more probable than not that this was carried out by Mr Pearce or someone acting in accordance with his instructions,’ he concluded, ordering Mr Pearce and his company to pay £47,866.94 in damages, plus £3254.00 in respect of a small claim relating to work on the couple’s the London property.
He also ordered him to pay the couple’s legal costs, which were said to be about £145,000 during the trial.
He awarded Mr Pearce £3,002.39 for an unpaid invoice to be offset against the damages he must pay.
Source: Read Full Article
