Lawyers for Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza failed to honour an undertaking to hand over documents, Bermuda's Court of Appeal heard yesterday.

Nicholas Patten, the lawyer for the corporate defendants -- Favorita Holdings Limited, Thybo Trustees Limited, and Tornabuoni Limited -- claimed the baron's lawyer Robert Ham did not hand over documents as ordered by Chief Justice Austin Ward.

Mr. Patten said last September the baron's lawyers were ordered to give the defendants photocopies of all documents in the Paul Coleridge files which were not previously disclosed.

Paul Coleridge QC was the lawyer who acted for the baron in drafting a 1987 family pact.

Mr. Patten said the baron's lawyers agreed to the court order without any argument, but then failed to honour an undertaking to hand over these documents. Instead they contended some of the documents of the couple could not be disclosed because they were covered by joint privilege, he said.

The documents relate to the setting up of a separate trust for the baron's art collection, one of the largest ever in private hands, until it was said to be sold to the Spanish Government for $350 million in 1993.

The court ordered that the baron's lawyers were to do their best to produce documents of 1987 dealing with advice given to the baron by Mr. Coleridge.

Lawyers accused of failing to honour undertaking These documents from the file of Mr. Coleridge were to be sent by the baron's lawyers to London on or before October 26, 1998, Mr. Patten added.

He claimed he first heard that the documents were protected by privilege when Michael Crystal, one of the baron's lawyers, opened his appeal recently in the preliminary hearing.

Mr. Patten argued the matter of joint privilege was not mentioned in an earlier hearing before Puisne Judge Richard Ground.

He said the whole claim by the baron's lawyers that the documents on the file of Mr. Coleridge were protected from disclosure was misconceived.

He continued by saying, Mr. Ham suggested that only one or two Coleridge documents existed which were privileged in an earlier court hearing.

All the arguments before Puisne Judge Denis Mitchell concerned the issue of whether documents belonging to the baron's wife Carmen (Tita) could be disclosed as evidence in an upcoming civil trial. Currently, the baron's lawyers are appealing a ruling this year in Chambers by Mr. Justice Mitchell that the documents are not privileged communications.

Mr. Patten claimed since the documents were not handed to the defendants' lawyers this resulted in the wrong ruling by Mr. Justice Mitchell earlier this year.

He ended his arguments by saying, Mr. Justice Mitchell erred in saying in his judgement he had to balance the oath of the baron with a note from his former lawyer Sir Timothy Lloyd.

This note from Sir Timothy concerned his role in advising on the art trust of the baron and baroness between 1990 and 1993.

Mr. Patten said all other relevant documents should have been considered by the judge. Since the Coleridge documents were not before the judge he reached the wrong conclusion, he added.

The preliminary hearing of the family feud over a $2.7 billion fortune continues in the Court of Appeal today.