Caterer left with stately bill after £1m case lost
Daniel Gill, managing director of Dine Catering Ltd, was ordered by Judge Langan QC to pay Harewood House Trust almost 30,000 as well as 60,000 in legal costs.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe judge also dismissed Dine's counterclaim for loss of earnings believed to total around 830,000 after its 10-year contract to cater for weddings and other events in Harewood's grounds was terminated.
The High Court in Leeds heard evidence earlier this year detailing how a 20-year business relationship between the stately home and Dine, the defendant, soured following a row over alleged underpayments.
Harewood House, owned by the Queen's cousin, claimed it was owed 23,000 in unpaid commission. Harewood would receive a 15 per cent commission on food and drink sales at a marquee erected in its grounds.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMatters came to a head a few months after the appointment of a new chief executive, Richard Mansel,l in February 2008.
Events organiser Lucy Attwood choreographed a 40th birthday party in April and afterwards she complained about Dine's contribution and provided Harewood with a copy of Dine's invoice to the customer.
Judge Langan who handed down his judgment yesterday said: ''The discrepancy between the commission declared by Dine on the CRF (commission reporting form) and the amount due for commission on a proper analysis of the invoice was such that Mr Mansell was 'dumbfounded'.''
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdYesterday, David Lascelles, Chairman of Harewood House Trust said: "I'm obviously very pleased to have won our case. As an educational charity we rely on our commercial activities to support our cultural and educational work and I feel badly let down by Dine, both personally and professionally."
Mr Mansell said: "I was informed of difficulties in 2007 with Dine Catering, all due to adverse ground conditions during one of the wettest summers on record and therefore beyond the control of all parties.
"My intention was to rebuild the relationship with Dine and I entered into early and initially positive dialogue with the managing director, Daniel Gill.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad"I soon realised that the goodwill I had extended was not being reciprocated. It became apparent that commissions due to us under the terms of our agreement were being under-declared and therefore underpaid.
"I have not previously been involved in commercial litigation and was reluctant to expose Harewood to such processes without being reasonably confident of our case.
"In that respect the advice, integrity and professionalism of our legal team from Milners Solicitors, Giles Ward, Dean Hill and Victoria Wells was excellent.''
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMr Gill said it was now "water under the bridge" but did not rule out an appeal. He said: "We won one point (regarding 'standard deductions' corkage and menu options where the judge found 'nothing is due to Harewood' and lost two. I feel that the number of errors was blown out of proportion and used as a device to end the contract.
"Our position is that there were six errors in three years where we have simply not made the correct amount. What's most important to me is that irrespective of the contractual position was that there was no question that we did anything to deprive Harewood of its money. There were annual reconciliations (of the accounts).
"The accusation that we deprived them of information is not right. We could not have run a contract for three-and-a half years by withholding information so that is ridiculous.
"We did make mistakes and Harewood made mistakes. I absolutely agree that mistakes were made and that should not have happened.''