Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
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 making a “spectacular smash and grab” raid on the family fortune.
Natalie Berg built up textiles chain Fabric Land over five decades after starting out in 1971 as a simple market trader – working with her parents before going on to develop a multimillion-pound business alongside husband Jeremy, supplying customers including in the world of theatre.
The couple’s daughter Marnie and her husband Darren Hill also later joined the family fabric business, with Marnie having dedicated 30 years of her life to Fabric Land since the age of 16.
But following Marnie’s tragic death in 2022, aged 49, a family war erupted, with Mr and Mrs Berg on one side and their son-in-law Darren on the other.
They are now facing off in court after Darren sued for ownership of the business – which he values at £10m – claiming he was promised the company would be handed to him and Marnie before he agreed to start working for it in 2007.
He says the couple made binding promises about the future of Fabric Land, claiming he endured years of a fractious working relationship with his father-in-law and worked “long and unsociable hours” on the basis that he would be left in control after they retired at the age of 70.
Darren Hill outside Central London County Court after hearing in dispute over Fabric Land shares (Champion News)
But Natalie, now 73, and Jeremy Berg, now 75, say no such promises were 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.
(Supplied by Champion News)
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 decision and made this move relying on the promises made to him by Natalie and Jeremy,” said his barrister, although 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 suggested the couple may be motivated by deep-seated hostility towards their son-in-law because they both “blame Darren for their daughter’s death.”
And while the Bergs insist he lacked the right stuff to take over the reins and was “never fit for management,” Darren claims he and Marnie were acknowledged to be the “future of the business,” said Mr Saunders.
But the couple’s barrister, Pepin Aslett, said they claim no such promises were ever made, and in court branded the lawsuit little more than a calculated raid on the assets they have built 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 said in his written arguments to the court.
He also dismissed Mr Hill’s claim that Fabric Land could be worth up to £10m as “pie in the sky”.
Their son-in-law never had a pivotal role in the company, he added, pointing out that “at no time was he a shareholder or a director”.
He had also “walked out of the company,” formally resigning in June 2022 and, at the time of her tragic death, Marnie was “estranged” from him and instructing divorce lawyers.
Taking a job with Fabric Land was a step up for Darren, claimed the barrister, saying he also picked up a range of benefits while working there.
In court, Darren gave evidence about his role with Fabric Land, saying he had an “executive role”.
The Bergs’ barrister, however, pressed him about the daily aspects of his work at Fabric Land, including having to “sign off pay” for the workforce.
“What does signing off really mean?” asked Mr Aslett, suggesting that he simply had to confirm figures and press a button to authorise payments.
“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 decide whether the couple made binding promises about handing over the company, continues.
