Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could be called to testify in a £40mn civil fraud trial in London involving a former Goldman Sachs banker accused of misappropriating assets from a Turkish multimillionaire.
Lawyers for Selman Turk want the former prince to appear in forthcoming proceedings at the High Court in London, saying his evidence could help their client rebut a lawsuit that a wealthy woman has brought against the banker that alleges he siphoned off her funds.
A draft of the 11-week trial timetable, seen by the FT after an application to the court, has provisionally included time for Mountbatten-Windsor to testify in December.
However, lawyers for the woman bringing the case are resisting the move, saying the preparatory step being taken in readiness to attempt to compel Mountbatten-Windsor to appear as a witness has been made too late and that any evidence he could give would be irrelevant.
After about 90 minutes of argument in court on the matter on Wednesday, Mr Justice Adam Johnson said he would issue a ruling at a later date.
It came on the eve of a separate hearing involving Mountbatten-Windsor, who is challenging the legality of police search warrants executed against his properties following his arrest this year.
The younger brother of King Charles is seeking a judicial review of warrants obtained ahead of his arrest in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, following revelations in the Epstein files.
It was the first arrest of a member of the British royal family on a criminal warrant since Charles I following the English civil war.
The separate civil case against Turk has been brought by Nebahat Evyap İşbilen, who fled Turkey to live in the UK after her husband, a politician, was imprisoned.
Her lawyers say she entrusted Turk to transfer about $90mn of assets out of Turkey to stop them from being seized. İşbilen alleges that Turk diverted about £40mn, including into offshore structures and companies under his control.
Turk denies any wrongdoing, maintaining that all transfers were authorised and were for the purpose of protecting her wealth, and that he has accounted for her assets.
Mountbatten-Windsor became associated with the dispute after disclosures obtained by İşbilen’s lawyers showed that substantial sums originating from İşbilen had reached the former prince’s household.
These included a payment of £750,000 transferred from İşbilen’s account at private bank Hampden & Co to Mountbatten-Windsor in November 2019.
In her lawsuit, İşbilen’s lawyers said Turk told her the sum was a “gift” to the late Queen’s second son to secure his help in dealing with issues she had with her Turkish passport.
In his defence to the claim, Turk denied telling her the funds were related to assistance with her passport and maintained İşbilen instructed the transfer.
He understood the payment to be a wedding gift for Princess Beatrice, the elder daughter of Mountbatten-Windsor and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, the former Duchess of York, the defence added.
Sums were routed to Mountbatten-Windsor and Ferguson through a company called Alphabet Capital, İşbilen’s lawyers said.
Mountbatten-Windsor repaid the £750,000 and reached a settlement with İşbilen, leaving no outstanding claims against him or his former wife, according to a written submission from her lawyers and an earlier court judgment.
İşbilen’s lawyers said in a written submission that “the topics to be covered by Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s evidence would largely be irrelevant” and would be disruptive to the trial.
However, Turk’s lawyers said in a written submission that the transactions involving his household had been deployed as a “central pillar” of the case against him to attack his credibility.
They told the court evidence from Mountbatten-Windsor, who was stripped of his titles by the King last October, would be “highly relevant and highly probative” but that Turk’s attempts to contact the former prince had failed.
Turk’s lawyers are seeking permission from the court to serve a late so-called witness summary, a preliminary legal filing used before any attempt to compel testimony when a witness does not provide a voluntary statement.
If granted, it would then be open to Mountbatten-Windsor, who is not a party to the case, to ask the court to set aside any subsequently issued summons.
Mountbatten-Windsor did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A private hearing in Mountbatten-Windsor’s separate case against Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court is due to take place on Thursday. The force is expected to attempt to restrict access to court documents.