A dispute over the ownership and value of the 70-carat “Idol’s Eye” diamond has brought two branches of Qatar’s royal family into a legal confrontation at London’s High Court.
The conflict centres on the rights to purchase the historic gemstone, with Sheikh Hamad bin Abdullah Al Thani, cousin to Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and his company QIPCO on one side, and the family of the late Sheikh Saud bin Mohammed Al Thani on the other.
The “Idol’s Eye” Diamond: Historical Context
The “Idol’s Eye,” known for its storied history, has been in Sheikh Saud’s possession since the early 2000s. Sheikh Saud, who served as Qatar’s minister of culture from 1997 to 2005, was renowned for his art and gemstone collection. Before his death in 2014, he lent the diamond to QIPCO, where Sheikh Hamad serves as chief executive.
The agreement between the two parties granted QIPCO the option to purchase the diamond with the approval of Elanus Holdings, a Liechtenstein-based entity tied to the Al Thani Foundation, which represents Sheikh Saud’s widow and three children.
Dispute Over Ownership and Valuation
The current dispute arose after QIPCO sought to enforce what it claims is its right to acquire the diamond. QIPCO’s legal team argues that a 2020 letter from the Al Thani Foundation’s lawyer constituted a binding agreement to sell the gem for $10 million. They are asking the court to compel Elanus to finalise the sale.
However, Elanus contends that the letter was sent in error. Representing Elanus, lawyer Sa’ad Hossain stated that Sheikh Hamad bin Saud Al Thani, one of Sheikh Saud’s sons, was merely exploring the possibility of a sale at an appropriate price. Additionally, he had not consulted the other beneficiaries of the Al Thani Foundation.
The two parties also have starkly different valuations for the diamond. QIPCO maintains the $10 million price mentioned in the 2020 correspondence, while Elanus’ expert estimates the gemstone’s value to be closer to $27 million.
Implications for the Jewelry Industry
The case highlights the complexities surrounding the valuation and ownership of rare gemstones, especially when historical significance and provenance come into play. Jewellers observing the proceedings may note the challenges of navigating such disputes, particularly when estates, high-profile individuals, and fluctuating market values are involved.
Additionally, the outcome could influence future transactions involving similarly rare and significant pieces, potentially affecting how agreements are formalised and enforced within the trade. For jewellers specialising in high-value or investment-grade gemstones, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear documentation and mutual consent in contractual agreements.
The High Court’s decision is expected to clarify not only the ownership of the “Idol’s Eye” diamond but also set a precedent for disputes involving high-value assets in the jewelry world.
