Harewood cash row firm hits back

Simon Myerson, QC, said Dine Catering Ltd did not, under the terms of its operating contract. have to provide client invoices to Harewood House Trading Ltd, the commercial arm of Harewood House Trust – a bitter point of contention between the parties.

Harewood, Yorkshire's most famous stately home which is owned by the Queen's cousin, has claimed during a hearing at Leeds High Court that the 20-year business relationship imploded following a row over alleged underpayments.

Harewood says it is owed 23,000 in unpaid commission from the defendant. The Leeds-based catering firm, run by Daniel Gill, has put in a counter-claim for loss of earnings, which could total as much as 830,000, after its 10-year contract to cater for weddings, parties and other events was terminated.

The arrangement between the two was for Harewood to receive a 15 per cent commission on food and drink sales at a marquee set up in its grounds.

But the explosive issue of the client invoices erupted in 2008 following a grand birthday celebration held for Suzannah Allard for which her husband had flown in the band Westlife.

Harewood was sent a copy of Dine's invoice for the event – the first time it had seen an invoice since the start of the 2007 season – and raised concerns that the amount of income being generated by events was being under-accounted.

But in his closing speech yesterday Mr Myerson said arguments put forward by the Trust about the lack of invoices could not be held up simply because there was no requirement on the company to provide them.

He said: "The contract provides simply that Dine will pay 15 per cent commission. We need to look carefully at what happened in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The reason for the lack of invoices in 2005 and 2006 is that the parties had not contracted for it.

''What happened in 2005 and 2006 was that the way in which this was contracted was to sit down and reconcile payments with it going both ways.

"One therefore looks at this whole question of underreporting in this way in our submission...I say that even if Mr Gill, had said sorry about not seeing the invoices that in itself is not a breach. It's not deliberate wrongdoing or breach of contract, it's what the parties agreed.''

Neil Berragan for Harewood argued there had been a failure to provide a copy of invoices when requested for a period of a year. He also claimed there had been significant errors in assessing what was due to Harewood and these were so serious as to justify the termination of the arrangement.

He said: "Errors will be made, errors of omission will be made but significant errors will entitle us to terminate. The breaches I am

going to refer to are serious enough to justify termination.

''They are breaches of the central obligation, which is that Dine undertakes paying us for use of the property. There were in fact eight events for which payment was not made. And it appears of those eight they did not submit commission reporting forms for seven. We have a central failure to pay at all during the last few months of this contract.''

But Mr Myerson countered: "It's not right that eight or seven events were missing. In our submission it's plain that the parties did intend and did operate the contract which provided for reconciliation at the end of a set period which they agreed between themselves.''

The case continues.