Rags to riches pensioner couple in court fight with son-in-law over £10m textiles empire

A rag trade-to-riches textiles queen and her husband are locked in a £10m court feud with their son-in-law, who they accuse of creating a “spectacular smash and grab” raid on the household fortune.

Natalie Berg constructed up textiles chain Fabric Land over 5 a long time after beginning out in 1971 as a easy market dealer – working with her mother and father earlier than occurring to develop a multimillion-pound enterprise alongside husband Jeremy, supplying prospects together with in the world of theatre.

The couple’s daughter Marnie and her husband Darren Hill additionally later joined the household material enterprise, with Marnie having devoted 30 years of her life to Fabric Land for the reason that age of 16.

But following Marnie’s tragic demise in 2022, aged 49, a household struggle erupted, with Mr and Mrs Berg on one facet and their son-in-law Darren on the opposite.

They are actually dealing with off in court after Darren sued for possession of the enterprise – which he values at £10m – claiming he was promised the corporate can be handed to him and Marnie earlier than he agreed to begin working for it in 2007.

He says the couple made binding guarantees about the way forward for Fabric Land, claiming he endured years of a fractious working relationship with his father-in-law and labored “long and unsociable hours” on the idea that he can be left in management after they retired on the age of 70.

But Natalie, now 73, and Jeremy Berg, now 75, say no such guarantees have been ever made, and have branded the lawsuit “an attempt by Darren to orchestrate a spectacular ‘smash and grab’ of [their] assets”.

Fabric Land, according to the company’s website, became a thriving textiles chain after starting out from humble beginnings on a market stall in Maidenhead, Berks.

Now with an HQ near Bournemouth, they have online and high street outlets, as well as supplying the theatrical departments of several well known cruise companies, including Carnival Cruise Liners and Cunard, with fabric for the costumes used in their theatrical shows.

Central London County Court heard their daughter, Marnie, joined the family firm at the age of 16, going on to work with her parents for the next 30 years until she tragically committed suicide in May 2022 after her mental and physical health declined during the Covid lockdown.

Her husband Darren had also worked for the company between 2007 and 2022 as an executive manager, having sold his interest in the business he was working in, the court heard.

However, he now says he only did so because his parents-in-law made binding promises about the future of Fabric Land on a holiday in Vietnam over 20 years ago that he and Marnie would eventually take over the business after they retired.

He says he worked “long and unsociable hours” for relatively scant reward, and that he carried on his heavy workload “during annual leave, over holidays and through ill-health…tolerating a verbally abusive working environment from 2018/19”.

Now, following his wife’s death, he is suing to force the elderly couple to make good on their alleged promises and hand him their shares in the company.

He is also claiming he was promised ownership of two warehouses in Ringwood, Hants, which the couple own but lease to the company, following their deaths.

“The family, including Natalie and Jeremy, holidayed in Vietnam in December 2003, at which time Marnie and Darren had been together for eight years and married for 18 months,” his barrister James Saunders told the court.

“During this holiday, it is Darren’s case that the family discussed the future of the company and that assurances/promises were made to Darren that, if he were to join the business, he and Marnie would be the owners and controllers of that business when Natalie and Jeremy ultimately retired.

“That position was maintained, and further like assurances made, during the subsequent years and Darren ultimately decided to join the company in April 2007.”

“It is Darren’s case that he took this determination and made this transfer counting on the guarantees made to him by Natalie and Jeremy,” stated his barrister, though noting: “The Bergs’ case is that no such promises/representations were made and that Darren joined the company because Marnie asked them to offer him a job”.

Darren’s barrister labelled the couple’s “total denial of any promises or assurances” as “extreme” and recommended the couple could also be motivated by deep-seated hostility in the direction of their son-in-law as a result of they each “blame Darren for their daughter’s death.”

And whereas the Bergs insist he lacked the proper stuff to take over the reins and was “never fit for management,” Darren claims he and Marnie have been acknowledged to be the “future of the business,” stated Mr Saunders.

But the couple’s barrister, Pepin Aslett, stated they declare no such guarantees have been ever made, and in court branded the lawsuit little greater than a calculated raid on the property they’ve constructed up over years of toil.

“Mr and Mrs Berg will say that the true reason for this claim is no more than an attempt by Darren to orchestrate a spectacular ‘smash and grab’ of Mr and Mrs Berg’s assets,” he stated in his written arguments to the court.

He additionally dismissed Mr Hill’s declare that Fabric Land could possibly be value up to £10m as “pie in the sky”.

Their son-in-law by no means had a pivotal position in the corporate, he added, mentioning that “at no time was he a shareholder or a director”.

He had additionally “walked out of the company,” formally resigning in June 2022 and, on the time of her tragic demise, Marnie was “estranged” from him and instructing divorce attorneys.

Taking a job with Fabric Land was a step up for Darren, claimed the barrister, saying he additionally picked up a variety of advantages whereas working there.

In court, Darren gave proof about his position with Fabric Land, saying he had an “executive role”.

The Bergs’ barrister, nevertheless, pressed him concerning the every day features of his work at Fabric Land, together with having to “sign off pay” for the workforce.

“What does signing off really mean?” requested Mr Aslett, suggesting that he merely had to verify figures and press a button to authorise funds.

“I authorised wages for a team of 100-plus staff,” replied Darren. “I didn’t just press a button, I had to double and triple check the figures.”

The trial, in which Judge Nigel Gerald will resolve whether or not the couple made binding guarantees about handing over the corporate, continues.