Property tycoon Nicholas Hoogstraten has begun a legal tug-of-war to seize back control of his financial empire.

Mr Hoogstraten, from Framfield, near Uckfield, who has claimed to be worth £500 million, said a ruling which led to his property empire being gradually sold off was unfair.

But relatives of a murdered businessman want to know the whereabouts of more of his possessions, such as a £200 million art and antiques collection thought to have been hidden in Switzerland.

Mr Hoogstraten was ordered to reveal his wealth in October 2002 while awaiting sentencing for the manslaughter of business rival Mohammed Raja.

Mr Hoogstraten, 59, was found guilty of manslaughter but later cleared on appeal. The family of Mr Raja has continued civil litigation against the magnate for up to £5 million in damages and court costs.

The High Court heard yesterday that Mr Hoogstraten had accumulated huge costs for failing to disclose his wealth, which led to a contempt of court order.

An initial fine of £200,000 was imposed with a similar amount, plus ten per cent, being added every week. This figure was later reduced but Mr Hoogstraten remains some £3 million in arrears.

The court heard that up to £12 million of his assets had been identified by court-appointed sequestrators but they still wanted to know where his art collection was.

Peter Irvin, QC, representing the Rajas, said Mr Hoogstraten should not be allowed to appeal against the freezing of assets while he refused to comply with an order to disclose his wealth.

Mr Irvin said: "This is a fairly extreme case involving a fairly extreme defendant or appellant. It will come under great scrutiny in the future.

"It is very important the law is not made a mockery of by procedural points which, in the end, are seen not to make a difference at all.

"There are undoubtedly orders Mr Hoogstraten simply made no attempt to comply with and has never given an excuse for not doing so."

However, the appeal was allowed to proceed and Mr Hoogstraten's counsel, Geoffrey Cox, QC, argued the contempt of court order made in 2002 was unfair because his client was unable to appear in court that day.

Mr Cox said Mr Justice Peter Smith had been warned documents sometimes became misplaced while passing through the extremely tight security at HMP Belmarsh, where Mr Hoogstraten was residing at the time.

He said the judge had no way of knowing whether his client had received the relevant documents in time and so could have attended court.

The hearing continues.