A CHAUFFEUR who allegedly let a pal drive his multi-millionaire boss’s £380,000 Ferrari before they crashed it says he is to blame.
Allen Sicurella worked for financier Richard Hanson for 17 years until the pair fell out over the 458 Speciale smash.
Allen Sicurella says he was the one who crashed the £380,000 Ferrari, not his palChampion News Service Ltd
Mr Hanson’s Ferrari 458 Speciale, similar to this one, was wrecked following the crash in 2019Champion News Service Ltd
The private equity chief – who is reportedly worth £90million – fired Mr Sicurella then dragged him to court seeking £290,000 in damages he claimed was done to the super car.
He also sued Mr Sicurella’s friend, Raymond Zarb, who was allegedly in the driving seat at the time of the June 2019 crash in Hampshire.
The case has been going on for three years, although it has yet to reach trial, but Mr Hanson’s claim against Mr Zarb was “settled at an early stage”.
But the claim against his former chauffeur is set to continue in a case which could end up costing him a “crippling” £478,000 in damages and lawyers’ bills.
At the High Court last week, Mr Sicurella’s barrister, Angus Gloag, told Judge Victoria McCloud: “It’s claimed that Mr Zarb crashed it.
“But Mr Sicurella’s case is that he was legitimately driving it, and there was an accident and that’s that.”
The chauffeur insists Mr Zarb’s crash injuries, mainly on the left side of his face, supports this claim.
The judge heard that after repeatedly failing to disclose key evidence, Mr Sicurella’s defence was “struck out” in November 2021.
He was told to pay out £67,484 in damages, an amount which gave credit for the money Mr Hanson received in his settlement with Mr Zarb.
But last week the former chauffeur got permission to resurrect his defence and fight the multimillionaire’s – whose son is Le Mans racing driver Philip Hanson – claim.
This is despite telling the judge that if he loses, another £66,000 will be added to Mr Sicurella’s £345,000 court costs, leaving him facing a £478,000 bill.
The judge said: “It seems to me there is sufficient merit on the arguable facts of the case that on balance justice wouldn’t be done by denying the right to defend.”