Linklaters has hit back over remarks made by MPs during questioning over the sale of BHS.

Dispute resolution partner Andrew Hughes wrote to the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee on 26 May to raise issue with comments made during the committee's questioning of Linklaters' corporate partner Owen Clay on 23 May and separately in an interview with Legal Week.

Partners from both Linklaters and Nabarro appeared before the BIS Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee as part of the ongoing inquiry into the sale of Philip Green's Arcadia Group's £1 sale of BHS to Retail Acquisitions, which is led by Dominic Chappell, who had twice been declared bankrupt prior to the acquisition.

During the committee meeting, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Labour MP Frank Field, asked Clay whether he felt "any responsibility" after failing to discover "the most obvious thing about this person".

Field then asked Clay: "Do you think it would be fair for other companies who might be looking at selling all or part of their holdings not to use either of your two firms?"

Clay replied: "You would need to ask them."

Hughes' letter states that these comments were "completely unjustified".

Hughes also states that Clay had made clear his parameters in advising on the deal and had said to the committee: "Businessmen do not employ deal lawyers to vet the business acumen of their counterparties."

Nabarro partner Ian Greenstreet, who advised Arcadia owner Taveta on pensions matters between 2009 and 2015, was questioned alongside Clay on the sale.

At various points, Greenstreet – and on one occasion, Clay – declined to answer questions, citing client privilege, which neither of their clients had waived.

In his letter, Hughes stated: "The committees had discussed the challenges faced by witnesses because of legal professional privilege and had resolved to be mindful and respectful of that privilege."

Hughes also expressed concern with comments made by Labour MP and chair of the select committee Frank Field in an interview with Legal Week.

His letter said that the statements attributed to Field are "to say the least, inappropriate", and added: "In fact, we are confident that they are actionable in that they are highly defamatory, untrue and not protected by parliamentary privilege."

Despite this, Hughes confirmed that Linklaters has "no intention of taking the matter further, other than respectfully requesting the committees to disregard the published statements".

A spokesperson for Linklaters had previously told Legal Week that the comments made by Mr Field were "wholly untrue and highly inappropriate" and that "only one question put to Mr Clay in the oral evidence session was not answered by him on the basis that it invited the disclosure of legally privileged information".