好色先生TV

The feuding executors of Zaha Hadid鈥檚 estate have agreed that the late architect鈥檚 eponymous practice should stop using her name 鈥� but court papers reveal contradictory reasons for the move.

High Court documents seen by 好色先生TV鈥檚 sister title BD show Hadid鈥檚 longstanding collaborator and ZHA principal Patrik Schumacher accepts that he consented to drop the name 鈥淶aha Hadid鈥� from the practice at the request of his three fellow executors 鈥� artist Brian Clarke, Lord Palumbo and Rana Hadid, Hadid鈥檚 niece.

But while they claim the move was to enable him to practice under his own name and to correspond with the end of royalty payments connected with the Zaha Hadid name, Schumacher alleges he only agreed to change the practice name to help the administration of the estate.

The court papers do not mention potential future names for ZHA 鈥� but Companies House lists Schumacher as a director of Studio 9 Employee Trust Ltd, which was incorporated in March last year and has eight directors. They are Schumacher, six ZHA senior staff and a solicitor. Studio 9 at 10 Bowling Green Lane in London鈥檚 Farrringdon is ZHA鈥檚 main address.

Schumacher is currently pursuing a High Court bid to ditch his three fellow executors, detailing a . They include allegations the three cast doubt on his ability to run the business and that they demanded the practice should stop using the words 鈥淶aha Hadid鈥� in its name.

Schumacher argues the trio used to undermine his position and advance a name-change for ZHA. The speech questioned the justification for keeping social housing in prime London neighbourhoods but supported the provision of second homes for the rich.

At the time, the three executors issued a press release stating Hadid 鈥渨ould have been totally opposed to these views and would have disassociated herself from them鈥�.

In their 36-page response to Schumacher鈥檚 claims, Clarke, Palumbo and Hadid deny 鈥渦njustifiable hostility鈥� and 鈥減ersonal animus鈥� towards Schumacher. They describe the cause of the dispute as 鈥渢ension and conflict鈥� between Schumacher鈥檚 desire to be in sole charge of the practice and their 鈥渄uties to preserve the assets of the estate for all beneficiaries鈥�.

The trio said discussions that included Schumacher had reached 鈥渂road agreement鈥� that the practice would cease to use the Zaha Hadid name 鈥渙ver time鈥� and that Schumacher had supported the change, despite recognising there would be opposition from some staff.

Their defence states that Schumacher had supported the change of name because a licence agreement between Hadid herself and Zaha Hadid Ltd that paid a royalty for the use of her name would come to an end 鈥渁nd because it would enable him to trade under his own name鈥�.

However, Clarke, Palumbo and Hadid admitted that Schumacher鈥檚 views, expressed in the Berlin speech, had been 鈥渁 factor in the broad agreement鈥� regarding the name. They denied they had 鈥渦nfairly cast blame鈥� on him for the speech.

Although they insist that relations with Schumacher have not broken down 鈥渋rretrievably鈥�, they have issued a counterclaim seeking his removal as an executor.

Schumacher denies supporting the change of name so that he could trade under his own name.

The High Court is expected to hear Schumacher鈥檚 case later this year. Dates have yet to be finalised.