Sir Ben Kingsley and his wife are suing interior designers in £60,000 court fight after claiming their Kensington apartment was left like ‘building site’ and they walked off job without delivering luxury items including Calcutta gold worktop
- Sir Ben Kingsley is suing two interior designers for leaving his flat ‘uninhabitable’
- Kingsley contracted Leonardo Biagioni to give apartment a high-end makeover
- The 78-year-old claims Biagioni left the job without delivering all paid-for goods
- Biagioni insists he completed his job and says Lara Harrington is responsible
Sir Ben Kingsley is locked in a £60,000 court fight with interior designers who he says left his luxury London apartment like a ‘building site’.
The Oscar winner is suing two designers after a high-end makeover of his South Kensington apartment in 2019 left the property ‘uninhabitable’ and luxury items were not delivered.
Sir Ben, 78, and wife Lady Daniela Lavender Kingsley, 47, wanted a ‘replan and restyle’ of their flat that included ‘unique bespoke furniture’, a gold finish to chrome and brasswork and high-end appliances fitted to the ‘highest standard.’
However they claim the interior designer walked off the job without delivering all their paid-for goods – leaving the apartment not fit to live in.
They are suing for delivery of the luxury household items, including a Calcutta gold worktop and marble vanity top, as well as damages for ‘conversion’ – a legal term meaning interference with their property.
Alternatively, they want the value of the allegedly missing items in a claim which their lawyers told Central London County Court has a total value of more than £59,000.
But interior designer Leonardo Biagioni and the fellow designer who also worked on the project, Lara Harrington, trading as Lumiere Interiors, deny any liability to pay the thespian couple damages.
Sir Ben Kingsley, 78, and his wife Lady Daniela Lavender Kingsley, 47, are suing two interior designers after their Kensington apartment was left ‘uninhabitable’
The couple are suing Leonardo Biagioni and Lara Harrington for damages, plus delivery of luxury household items, or the equivalent value, after their apartment was left like a ‘building site’
Interior designer Leonardo Biagioni claims that he was hired advise on installations only, and that Lara Harrington was directly contracted to the Kingsleys to carry the installations out
Mr Biagioni claims he completed his part of the job, which was solely to advise on installations not to carry them out.
He says that Ms Harrington had a contract directly with the Kingsleys to do the physical work and installations, and that she now holds the disputed items.
Ms Harrington accepts she still has a number of items intended for the flat, but claims her contract was with Mr Biagioni, that she left the job after the Kingsleys’ PA was ‘rude’ to her and is still owed thousands.
The Central London County Court fight was sparked by Sir Ben and Lady Daniela’s decision to overhaul their newly bought apartment near to Harrods.
Sir Ben and Lady Daniela, herself an accomplished Shakespearean, film and TV actor, say in court documents that they had agreed a ‘retainer’ with Mr Biagioni to ‘re-plan and re-style the complete flat’ to the ‘highest standard’.
Mr Biagioni, who styles himself an ‘artistic and creative interior designer bringing vision to life’, began masterminding the project in late 2019, claiming that it would take just four months, say the Kingsleys.
In turn, they claim, he sub-contracted Ms Harrington, who operates as Lumiere Interiors, to do some of the physical work of installing items and decorating.
But the Kingsleys say Mr Biagioni explicitly ‘quit’ the retainer in a telephone call with their PA, also saying that Ms Harrington would not be returning to do any more work on the flat.
Lara Harrington, operating as Lumiere Interiors, insists she was sub-contracted by Mr Biagioni and had not agreed anything directly with the Kingsleys
Soon after that, the Kingsleys’ lawyers fired off a letter to Mr Biagioni, claiming: ‘the works at the property required under the agreement are a very long way from being finished and it is currently uninhabitable and resembles a building site. That is not a situation our clients can tolerate.’
The couple are now suing Mr Biagioni and Ms Harrington for damages, plus delivery up of luxury household items which they say were paid for but not delivered, including a Calcutta gold worktop, Bosch integrated fridge, Bosch oven and dishwasher, and marble designed for a vanity top.
Alternatively, they want the value of the items, with their lawyers telling Judge Marc Dight at the court last week that the full value of the claim, including damages, is just over £59,000.
The couple’s ‘primary’ case is against Mr Biagioni, explained their solicitor Thomas Walshe in court documents, although they claim Lara Harrington is also liable if she is found to have retained any of the missing items.
They say Mr Biagioni sub-contracted some of the building works to Ms Harrington and her firm, although Mr Biagioni says he simply introduced the Kingsleys to Ms Harrington and that no sub-contract existed.
He also denies agreeing to do physical installation work at the flat and says he ‘never ordered or stored’ the missing items, claiming that the items are in the hands of Ms Harrington.
Mr Biagioni insists that he has completed his end of the bargain, having been contracted only to advise on the installation of items at the apartment, with Ms Harrington and her firm responsible for the physical work.
He also denies ‘quitting’ the retainer, claiming that the phone call in question had ended with the Kingsleys’ PA ‘screaming down the phone’ and giving him no chance to respond.
Sir Ben Kingsley and his wife either want the items delivered and damages or the value of the items plus damages which would come to just over £59,000
‘Mr Biagioni avers that whilst he contracted with the Kingsleys to advise on installations, he did not contract with them to provide building works and that this was the sole responsibility of Ms Harrington,’ says his solicitor Raymond Arman in his defence to the claim.
‘Mr Biagioni was not contracted to undertake or complete buidling works, this was arranged by way of separate – direct – contract between the Kingsleys and Ms Harrington.
‘Mr Biagioni is not skilled or qualified in the business of building works and is purely an interior designer. It would have been impossible for him to provide such services.
‘He admits that he agreed to place orders for materials, fixtures, fittings and furniture items, however his liability does not extend to the installation of the same or any works or services in this regard.
‘Mr Biagioni has completed his obligations under the contract. Any remaining works are the responsibility of Ms Harrington, who Mr Biagioni understands remains in possession of the undelivered goods.’
But in her separate defence to the action, Ms Harrington’s lawyers insist that she was sub-contracted by Mr Biagioni and had not agreed anything directly with the Kingsleys.
Her part was to install flooring, the kitchen and bathroom and to decorate, but the project was beset by delays caused by the Kingsleys or Mr Biagioni changing their minds and the discovery of previously unseen faults in the building structure.
She says her involvement came to an end after a phone call with the Kingsleys’ PA, who ‘inappropriately and rudely criticised’ her.
‘There were disagreements between Ms Harrington and the said personal assistant in respect of the nature and standard of the works undertaken by Ms Harrington, as a result of which Ms Harrington stated that she could not carry on working in those circumstances until the issues were resolved,’ says her solicitor, Lawrence Jegede.
‘It is noted that, at the time of cessation of the renovation works by Ms Harrington, the renovation works had been completed save for fixing the toilet, bath and basin in the bathroom, installation of kitchen worktop and the installation of the kitchen appliances in the kitchen.’
Ms Harrington also denies having all of the items which the Kingsleys say are missing, claiming that she is ‘exercising lien’ over a handful of household goods, including an oven and a fridge, until she is paid £6,250 she says is still owed by the Kingsleys for her work.
But her solicitor in court said she and her firm had attempted mediation and would be happy to return all disputed items.
The case reached court for a pre-trial hearing relating to the costs of a future trial of the row, which lawyers said would dwarf the £59,000 value of the claim if not settled outside court.
Source: Read Full Article
