An eco-fashion designer has lost her £6m court fight with King Charles’ private charity after claiming her business world “disintegrated” after it pulled out of a celebrity fundraiser with her brand.
Amanda Navaian – founder of luxury eco handbag company Marici London and self-professed “admirer” of the king and his green values – sued the King Charles III Charitable Trust, claiming she was left psychologically scarred and lost millions in revenue after it cancelled a collaborative project to host a launch dinner and promotional T-shirt venture in aid of the monarch’s Coronation Food Project.
Ms Navaian – who the court heard had been personally introduced to the King and showed him her sustainable handbag during the project – claimed the fallout from the collapse of the venture led to her “not being able to work for a long time”.
She went on to sue the charity – along with FareShare, the UK’s leading food redistribution charity, and Dori Dana-Haeri, who chairs the development committee for King Charles’ Coronation Food Project – jointly for £6m.
She alleged breach of contract and “misrepresentation” over the plans for the launch dinner – which she says was set to be a celebrity and influencer studded affair curated by Princess Beatrice’s stylist Olivia Buckingham – and T-shirt line being scrapped.
But Mr Justice Mansfield at London’s High Court today threw out her claims against the King’s charity, along with her case against Doric Dana-Haeri and most of her claim against Fareshare.
open image in galleryThe judge said that she had failed to prove that a binding “oral contract” had been reached for the charities to collaborate with her business during a Zoom meeting in April 2024 and dismissed her claims for “unlawful interference with economic relations” relating to the last minute cancellation of the planned dinner event at the Knightsbridge branch of international Japanese fine dining chain CLAP.
The judge said the dinner had been cancelled by CLAP after a falling out with Ms Navaian, during which she referred to those running CLAP as “thieves” in a phone call with a charity representative, with no blame being attached to the charities.
He also commented that parts of the alleged contract – including promises that she and her business “would be endorsed in front of business stakeholders as the creator of a social entrepreneurship generating millions” and that they “would receive…referrals and associations that would elevate Marici’s standing, particularly with ethical consumers, investors, the press and celebrities” – were “highly unlikely to have been expressly agreed.”
“These may well have been the claimants’ aspirations and their understanding of the effect of the projects, but…it is difficult to see how the defendants could promise that millions would be raised for the Coronation Food Project, or that the claimants’ standing would be elevated,” the judge said.
open image in galleryMs Navaian, 43, who has 20 years’ marketing and brand-building experience, founded high-end eco handbag line House of Marici in 2020.
She says it is the world’s first handbag brand to mix heritage luxury style and craftsmanship with “highly sustainable leather alternatives made from plants and being 100 per cent plastic free”.
She told the judge that she felt drawn to become involved with the Coronation Food Project due to her “admiration for King Charles and his values.”
To that end, she approached the charity in April 2024, making contact with Ms Dana-Haeri and proposing a plan to launch a range of fundraising T-shirts in support of the project, with a glitzy dinner event at CLAP.
During the process, she “got to see the palace, be introduced to the King and show him [her] sustainable handbag,” the court heard.
open image in galleryShe claimed a deal was agreed orally between herself, Ms Dana-Haeri and Dame Martina Milburn, the chair of the Coronation Food Project (CFP), via a Zoom meeting on April 29, for her to begin organising the project.
But in July 2024, the operators of CLAP London emailed Ms Navaian and the charities “to postpone the event indefinitely.”
Ms Navaian later said in an email to FareShare that the restaurant had cancelled over a disagreement between herself and its management over who would manage the provision of alcohol to guests attending the fundraising dinner, with the judge highlighting an email in which she is said to have referred to the CLAP management as “thieves” during a phone call with a charity representative.
Ms Navaian, who represented herself in the case, said she had engaged friends and celebrity contacts to help launch the initiative – including stylist and socialite Olivia Buckingham – adding that “there was to be clear royal involvement and the T-shirt project was only the start”.
“It was the last-minute cancellation which made my whole eco-system fall apart,” she said, adding that potential guests and others involved “wanted answers and wanted to know what went wrong”.
“Everything that meant anything to me was involved in that project.
“There could have been over one million in sales during that launch week.
“The result of the cancellation led to me not being able to work for a very long time and caused me loss.”
Ms Navaian and Marici London Ltd sued the King Charles III Charitable Trust Ltd and the other two defendants for a total of £6m in compensation, variously alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation and “unlawful interference” in their economic relations.
open image in galleryThey claimed the royal fund breached an oral agreement reached in the Zoom meeting in April 2024, which underpinned the fundraising project, while allegations of misrepresentation and unlawful interference were levelled against all three.
Andrew MacLeod, for the three defendants, insisted her case was “bound to fail” and challenged the massive £6m sum claimed, as “unparticularised, incoherent and speculative.”
Giving his ruling today, Mr Justice Mansfield said: “Ms Navaian is an entrepreneur with interests in fashion, sustainability and philanthropy. She is the founder and sole shareholder of Marici. She describes Marici as a sustainable luxury brand with a focus on ethical fashion and environmental responsibility.
“The claims relate to a collaboration between the parties on two connected fundraising projects over a period of around three months in 2024.
“Work was carried out to organise a dinner and to launch the T-Shirt initiative. The claimant worked hard on the projects from the end of April to mid-July. Both the dinner and the launch of the T-Shirt campaign were cancelled on 15 July 2024, only 24 hours before they were due to take place. Shortly thereafter the relationship between the parties was terminated.
“The claimants rely on an alleged contract made in a Zoom call on 29 April 2024. The defendants’ case that no such agreement was made.
“The defendants’ case is that the claim is hopeless. It has no realistic prospect of success.
“In my judgment, the claimants have no reasonably arguable case that any contractual agreement arose from the 29 April meeting.
“There is no realistic prospect of establishing that the parties intended to create legal relations on 29 April and the terms of the alleged agreement are too uncertain to give rise to binding contractual obligations.
“The alleged terms contain a number of other matters which were highly unlikely to have been expressly agreed on 29 April. For example [that] ‘the claimants would be endorsed in front of business stakeholders as the creator of a social entrepreneurship generating millions in support for the CFP community’ [and that] “the claimants would receive…referrals and associations that would elevate Marici’s standing, particularly with ethical consumers, investors, the press and celebrities confirmed in the projects.
“These may well have been the claimants’ aspirations and their understanding of the effect of the projects, but it is not expressly pleaded that these things were discussed and agreed at the 29 April Meeting, and it is difficult to see how the defendants could promise that millions would be raised for the CFP, or that the claimants’ standing would be elevated.
“Taking all of these circumstances into account, there is no argument with a realistic prospect of success that the oral agreement was concluded. That is fatal to the claimants’ claim for breach of contract against all defendants.”
In regard to the unlawful interference claim, the judge said the specific allegation was that the defendants had communicated with CLAP London “endorsing it to cancel”.
But he continued: “There is no proper basis for a suggestion that the defendants told CLAP London to cancel or induced them to do so.
“In any event, there is no pleaded basis upon which the defendants did anything unlawful in the relevant sense.
“There is no proper basis for the plea…that the defendants intended to cause harm to the claimants. For example, in relation to the cancellation of the dinner at CLAP London.
“The allegation that the defendants intended to cause harm to the claimants by the other acts relied on is nebulous. The defendants were entitled to bring their participation in the projects to an end. Contrary to the claimants’ case, they had no contractual obligation to continue.
“Their actions were consistent with the protection of their own position on termination of the relationship and do not arguably, in my judgment, give rise to an inference that they intended to harm the claimants.”
He allowed Ms Navaian to go forward with a small part of her claim against Fareshare, relating to her entitlement to be reimbursed up to £25,000 for expenses blown on the failed project.
The rest of her claims were struck out.