Optician at war with private eye

David Moulsdale, the founder of the Optical Express chain of opticians, claimed Dr Allan George had made defamatory remarks about him to others working in the opticians trade.

But yesterday, he failed to persuade the Court of Session in Edinburgh to grant him an interim interdict against Dr George.

With a fortune estimated at 100 million, Mr Moulsdale is one of the richest and most powerful businessmen in Scotland. He was the youngest ever winner of the Scottish Business Achievement Award in 1998 and the following year he topped a poll of the country’s most eligible bachelors.

He is also highly regarded in government circles and his entrepreneurial skills have earned the praise of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor.

But yesterday, the court heard how he had been the subject of extensive media reports in recent years which had referred to an alleged friendship with a "notorious drugs baron" and had claimed he was "no stranger to financial bother".

The drugs baron was Tony McGovern, 35, a Glasgow gangster who ran the drugs trade in the Maryhill and Springburn areas of the city. His friendship with Mr Moulsdale, the son of a Leith taxi driver, emerged after McGovern was shot and killed in September 2000.

The "financial bother" mentioned in court referred to his company’s failure to settle some of its debts on time. Mr Moulsdale, who lives in Dullater, near Cumbernauld, had been accused of building up his fortune at the expense of companies which were kept waiting for payment and Optical Express was the subject of a number of adverse court judgments.

Yesterday’s hearing was told that Mr Moulsdale was unhappy when he discovered that Dr George, from London, had been speaking to people about his business and private life and he sought an interim interdict to ban him from repeating the claims.

Michael Upton, counsel for Mr Moulsdale, said his client did not know the investigator, but "out of the blue" Dr George had been contacting people who knew Mr Moulsdale through the ophthalmic trade.

"He purported to want to gather information to decide whether or not to invest in Mr Moulsdale’s business," said Mr Upton. "But he does not restrict himself to questions ... he makes assertions about Mr Moulsdale."

Without specifying the allegations, Mr Upton said they were defamatory and went beyond what had appeared in the media. He added that Mr Moulsdale feared the allegations would be repeated if no court order were granted.

But Richard Keen, QC, for Dr George, said his client had only asked about matters which were already in the public domain.

Dr George was a commercial research consultant, he said, who had been engaged to make inquiries about Mr Moulsdale. He had been asked by Mr Moulsdale to disclose the identity of the client, but had refused.

"He contacted a number of people and asked if they were aware of the media reports, and whether they could make any comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the reports," said Mr Keen. "The matters were already in the public domain. He disputes that other, unrelated, allegations were made by him or canvassed."

Mr Keen added that Dr George had completed his research and submitted a report to his client, and had no intention of "revisiting this matter".

It is the second time in recent years that Dr George has been accused, unsuccessfully, of defamation. In 1995 Frank Machon, a self-confessed spy who became known as Captain Calamity after a series of nautical mishaps, lost a libel action he had launched in response to an unfavourable book review.

In the book Mr Machon claimed that he had spied for Britain in the former Eastern Europe and had to crash through border crossings with a snowplough on the front of his lorry to escape his pursuers. He was later bankrupted for failing to pay the costs of the libel action.

In court yesterday the judge, Lord Eassie, said that he believed there was no proper basis for Mr Moulsdale’s apprehension that the statements would be repeated.

He considered it inappropriate to grant an interim interdict but if evidence emerged to show the situation had changed, Mr Moulsdale could return to court and re-apply for an order.