The High Court has ruled that Zaha Hadid Architects must continue paying royalties to the Zaha Hadid Foundation under a licensing agreement, highlighting the ongoing financial and legal complexities surrounding the late architects legacyZaha HadidZaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) has lost a High Court case seeking to end a licensing agreement that requires the practice to pay 6% of its annual net income to the Zaha Hadid Foundation for the continued use of the late architects name. Since 2018, the agreement has generated 21.4 million for the foundation, which manages Hadids estate and legacy.The firm, led by Patrik Schumacher, argued that the agreement established in 2013 was intended solely to provide Hadid with income during her lifetime. Quoted in The Times, Schumacher described it as a way to replace a rather haphazard system of Dame Zaha claiming remuneration and expenses on an ad hoc basis which could have attracted negative media scrutiny.Schumacher asserted that his close professional relationship with Hadid, spanning over 30 years, would have ensured he was aware if her intention had been to fund the foundation through the licence agreement. He testified that he could recall no such conversation, denying that this could have been her intention.The practice claimed the royalties imposed an unfair financial burden, limiting its ability to operate competitively. However, Mr Justice Adam Johnson dismissed this argument, stating: The companys economic activity has not been sterilised. In fact, it has achieved considerable financial success in the period since the licence agreement was entered into.Financial records presented to the court showed ZHAs revenues nearly doubled from 2013 to 2023, reaching 69 million in the most recent financial year. While acknowledging the firms success, ZHA director Charles Walker expressed concerns about the agreements long-term sustainability.In his judgment, Justice Johnson emphasised that using Hadids name held very significant value for the firm and contributed to its global prestige and financial success. He concluded that the studios complaint centred on the belief it was paying too much for this right, rather than the agreement being inherently unfair.The case is the latest legal dispute involving ZHA and the foundation, following a protracted conflict over Hadids estate, which was settled in 2020. Hadid died in 2016 at the age of 65.> Also read:Zaha Hadid Architects 12m bill to use founders name