Son of notorious tycoon Nicholas van Hoogstraten caught in legal fray
The son of notorious criminal tycoon Nicholas van Hoogstraten finds himself embroiled in a bitter court battle over a luxury flat, with allegations swirling that his family’s firm employed “armed thugs” during a dispute over a roof extension.
Max Hamilton, 38, the eldest son of Van Hoogstraten, is at the centre of the controversy, with his property company, Omani Estates Limited, claiming ownership of a loft space that Maria El Massouri extended her flat into.
Embed from Getty ImagesAccording to Mrs Massouri, Omani Estates repeatedly sent agents to burgle her flat and later dispatched armed individuals to remove security cameras after she applied for possession of the space. The High Court heard that Mrs Massouri and her husband had obtained planning permission in 2002 to build a mansard roof extension on top of their second-floor flat in Chelsea, West London, an area where properties can fetch upwards of £1 million.
Omani Estates objected when she applied for adverse possession of the area covered by her extension in 2020, citing a lease from 1996 that it bought in 2017 as evidence of its ownership of the loft area. The company is also run by Britannia Hamilton, 33, Richmond Hamilton, 33, and Alexander Hamilton, 36 – all children of Nicholas Adolf von Hessen, 78, previously known as Nicholas van Hoogstraten.
Van Hoogstraten, known for his controversial treatment of tenants, was jailed for orchestrating an attack on the home of Rabbi Bernard Braunstein. Mrs Massouri alleges that workmen sent by Omani Estates entered her flat using scaffolding and installed a wooden barrier, blocking access to the loft room. She is suing the company for damages for trespass and seeking a declaration of ownership of the loft space via adverse possession.
Lawyers for Omani Estates deny ordering anyone into Mrs Massouri’s flat but admit to erecting scaffolding, removing a door, and installing the wooden barrier across the stairs. Judge Nicholas Caddick KC has reserved judgment on the case for a later date.
