Handbag designer loses bid to sue King Charles’ charity for £6m over failed fundraiser

An eco-fashion designer has lost a £6 million lawsuit with King Charles’s private charity after claiming her business was “falling apart” after her brand pulled out of a celebrity fundraiser.

Amanda Navaian, founder of luxury eco bag company Marici London and a self-proclaimed “fan” of the king and his green values, has sued the King Charles III Charitable Trust, claiming she was psychologically injured and lost millions in revenue after it canceled a joint project to host a launch dinner and promotional t-shirt initiative in aid of the monarch’s Coronation Dinner Project.

Ms Navaian, who the court heard was introduced to the King in person and showed him her sustainable bag during the project, claimed the fallout from the collapse of the startup left her “unable to work for long periods of time”.

He later sued the charity – along with FareShare, the UK’s leading food redistribution charity, and Dori Dana-Haeri, who chaired the development committee for King Charles’ Coronation Food Project – for £6 million.

He claimed breach of contract and “misrepresentation” over plans for the launch dinner, which he said would be a celebrity- and influencer-packed event curated by Princess Beatrice’s stylist Olivia Buckingham, and that the t-shirt line was scrapped.

But Mr Justice Mansfield at the High Court in London today threw out his claims against the King’s charity, along with his case against Doric Dana-Haeri and most of his claims against Fareshare.

The judge said he failed to prove that a binding “verbal agreement” was reached for the charity to cooperate with his business during a Zoom meeting in April 2024, and rejected claims of “unlawful interference in economic affairs” over the last-minute cancellation of a planned dinner event at the Knightsbridge branch of international Japanese fine dining chain CLAP.

The judge said that the dinner was canceled by CLAP after a disagreement with Ms. Navaian, during which Navaian, in a telephone conversation with a charity representative, called the people running CLAP “thieves”, and that no blame was laid on the charities.

He also stated that parts of the alleged agreement – ​​including promises that he and his business would be “certified before commercial stakeholders as the creator of a social entrepreneurship generating millions in revenue” and that they would “receive referrals and associations that would enhance Marici’s reputation, especially among ethical consumers, investors, the press and celebrities” – were “very unlikely to have been expressly agreed”.

“These may be the plaintiffs’ wishes and their understanding of the impact of the projects, but… it is difficult to understand how the defendants could promise that millions would be raised for the Coronation Food Project or that the plaintiffs’ status would be improved,” the judge said.

Ms. Navaian, 43, who has 20 years of marketing and branding experience, founded House of Marici, a high-end eco-friendly bag line, in 2020.

Miras says it is the world’s first handbag brand to combine luxury style and craftsmanship with “highly sustainable leather alternatives made from plants and 100 percent plastic-free.”

He told the judge he felt drawn to get involved with the Coronation Food Project because of his “admiration for King Charles and his values”.

To that end, she approached the charity in April 2024, contacting Ms. Dana-Haeri and proposing a plan to launch a series of fundraising t-shirts to support the project with a lavish dinner event at CLAP.

During the process, he “must see his palace, be introduced to the King, and [her] sustainable bag,” the court heard.

He claimed that a verbal agreement had been reached between him, Ms Dana-Haeri and Coronation Food Project (CFP) chairperson Dame Martina Milburn to begin organizing the project via a Zoom meeting on 29 April.

But in July 2024, CLAP London operators emailed Ms Navaian and the charities to “postpone the event indefinitely”.

Ms. Navaian later said in an email to FareShare that the restaurant was canceled due to a disagreement between her and management over who would manage the supply of alcohol to guests attending the fundraising dinner; The judge highlighted an email in which he was said to have described CLAP management as “thieves” during a telephone conversation with a charity representative.

Ms. Navaian, who is representing herself in the case, said she had contacted friends and famous people, including stylist and socialite Olivia Buckingham, to help launch the initiative, adding that “there must be clear royal involvement and the T-shirt project is just the beginning.”

“It was a last-minute cancellation that caused my entire ecosystem to fall apart,” he said, adding that potential guests and others involved “wanted answers and wanted to know what went wrong.”

“Everything that meant something to me was included in this project.

“There could have been over a million sales during the launch week.

“The consequence of the cancellation was that I was unable to work for a very long time and caused my loss.”

Ms Navaian and Marici London Ltd sued King Charles III Charitable Trust Ltd and two other defendants for damages totaling £6 million, alleging a range of claims including breach of contract, misrepresentation and “unlawful interference” in their economic affairs.

All three were leveled at allegations of misrepresentation and unlawful interference, while claiming that the royal fund had breached the verbal agreement reached during a Zoom meeting in April 2024 supporting the fundraising project.

Andrew MacLeod, for the three defendants, insisted his case was “doomed to fail” and objected to the huge sum of £6 million claimed as “vague, inconsistent and speculative”.

Delivering judgment today, Mr Justice Mansfield said: “Ms Navaian is an entrepreneur interested in fashion, sustainability and philanthropy. She is the founder and sole shareholder of Marici. She describes Marici as a sustainable luxury brand focused on ethical fashion and environmental responsibility.

“The allegations relate to collaboration between the parties on two linked fundraising projects over a period of approximately three months in 2024.

“Efforts were made to organize the dinner and launch the T-Shirt initiative. The plaintiff worked intensively on the projects from late April to mid-July. Both the dinner and the launch of the T-Shirt campaign were canceled on July 15, 2024, just 24 hours before it was due to take place. Shortly afterwards, the relationship between the parties was terminated.

“Plaintiffs rely on the alleged contract made in a Zoom call dated April 29, 2024.

“The defendants’ contention is that the claim is hopeless. There is no realistic prospect of success.”

“In my judgment, the plaintiffs have no reasonably arguable claim that a contractual agreement resulted from the April 29 meeting.

“There is no realistic prospect of establishing that the parties intended to establish legal relations on 29 April and that the terms of the alleged agreement were so vague as not to give rise to binding contractual obligations.

“The alleged terms include a number of other issues that are unlikely to be clearly agreed on April 29. For example [that] ‘claimants will be recognized before business stakeholders as the creator of a social entrepreneurship that has generated millions in support of the CFP community’ [and that] “They would receive recommendations and associations that would elevate Marici’s position among claimants, especially ethical consumers, investors, the press and celebrities approved in the projects.

“These may be the plaintiffs’ wishes and their understanding of the impact of the projects, but it is not expressly alleged that they were discussed and agreed at the 29 April Meeting and it is difficult to understand how the defendants could promise that millions would be raised for the CFP or that the plaintiffs’ reputation would be enhanced.

“Given all these circumstances, there is no argument that has a realistic prospect of success that the oral agreement was signed. This is fatal to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against all the defendants.”

Regarding the unlawful interference claim, the judge said the specific allegation was that the defendants had contacted CLAP London to “confirm the annulment”.

But he continued: “There is no proper basis for the allegation that the defendants told CLAP London to cancel or encouraged them to do so.

“In any event, there is no basis put forward to suggest that the defendants have done anything unlawful in the relevant sense.

“There is no proper basis for the allegation that the defendants intended to harm the plaintiffs, for example in relation to the cancellation of the CLAP London dinner.

“The allegation that the defendants intended to harm the plaintiffs with their other acts is ambiguous. The defendants had the right to terminate their participation in the projects. Unlike the plaintiffs, they did not have a contractual obligation to continue.

“Their actions were consistent with preserving their position in terminating the relationship and, in my judgment, do not give rise to an inference that they intended to harm the plaintiffs.”

It allowed Ms Navaian to assert a small part of her claim against Fareshare in relation to her right to a refund of up to £25,000 for costs arising from the failed project.

The rest of his claims were denied.