IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.

2022 HC 089
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

BETWEE
N

KREATIVE KIT LIMITED Claimant

and

IL LIEVITO LIMITED Defendant

_____________________________________

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

_____________________________________

DEFENCE

1. Unless otherwise indicated in this Defence and Counterclaim:

a) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of
Claim; and

b) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the
Particulars of Claim.

2. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted. Pursuant to the Contract the Claimant agreed to
design, manufacture and sell the Uniforms to the Defendant.

3. At the time the Contract was entered into, the Claimant knew that:
a) the design of the Uniforms would be left to the Claimant;

b) the choice of fabric used for the Uniforms would be left to the Claimant; and

1
 c) the Uniforms had to be suitable for a restaurant environment, where staff (in
particular chefs) often get food on their clothing but a professional appearance must
be presented to customers.

4. Paragraph 3 is admitted. Further, the following were express terms of the Contract:

a) the Defendant relied on the Claimant’s expertise to design and manufacture the
uniforms (clause 3); and

b) the Uniforms would conform to the contract specification (clause 3) and would
therefore be as follows:

(i) modern and practical;

(ii) machine washable;

(iii) comfortable;

(iv) smart, in that the fabric should not crease easily (schedule B).

5. The following conditions were implied into the Contract pursuant to the Supply of Goods
and Services Act 1982. The fabric used for the Uniforms would be:

a) of satisfactory quality (section 4(2));

b) reasonably fit for the purpose of being worn safely and comfortably by staff in a
restaurant (section 4(5)); and

c) reasonably fit for the purpose of being worn in a restaurant environment, where staff
often get food on their clothing but a professional appearance must be presented to
customers (section 4(5)).

6. Except that it is denied for the reasons set out in this Defence and Counterclaim that the
Uniforms delivered were in accordance with the Contract, paragraph 4 is admitted.

7. The Claimant was in breach of the Contract in that the Claimant:

PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF CONTRACT

a) provided Uniforms which were impractical;

2
 b) provided Uniforms which shrank after being washed;

c) provided Uniforms which, after washing, remained creased and were difficult to iron;

d) used a dye for the Uniforms which ran when the Uniforms were washed;

e) provided Uniforms which were uncomfortable, in that the t-shirts were itchy on the
skin in hot weather and in the hot kitchens;

f) provided Uniforms which were not, and/or did not remain, smart;

g) provided Uniforms which were not stain resistant;

h) provided aprons which were highly flammable, in that they caught fire when exposed
to a spark;

i) provided Uniforms which were not reasonably fit for the purpose of being worn in a
restaurant environment;

j) sourced and used a fabric which was not fit for purpose;

k) designed Uniforms which were not fit for purpose;

l) designed Uniforms which were unsafe;

m) chose a fabric which was not of satisfactory quality; and

n) designed and provided Uniforms which were not of satisfactory quality.

8. The breaches in paragraph 7 of this Defence amounted to repudiatory breaches of the

Contract by the Claimant. On 2 May 2021 Mr Stern on behalf of the Defendant accepted
the repudiation and exercised the Defendant’s right to reject the Uniforms in a meeting at
the Defendant’s office with Mr Heap of the Claimant.

9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant is in breach of contract as alleged in

paragraph 5, or at all. The Contract was terminated by repudiatory breach of contract on
2 May 2021, before payment for the Uniforms fell due. The paragraph is otherwise
admitted.

10. As to paragraph 6, it is denied for the reasons set out in paragraph 9 above that the
Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum, for the reasons alleged or at all.

3
11. Further or alternatively the Defendant shall seek to reduce or extinguish the Claimant’s
claims, as necessary by setting off the sum counterclaimed below against any sum
awarded.

COUNTERCLAIM

12. Paragraphs 2 to 7 above are repeated.

13. At the time the Contract was entered into, the Claimant knew that the Uniforms supplied
under the Contract were part of a re-branding exercise being undertaken by the
Defendant. Further, the Claimant knew that the Uniforms were due to be unveiled and
modelled at a launch party to be held by the Defendant in March 2021 (“the Launch”).

14. On 2 March 2021 the Defendant held the Launch, at which the Uniforms supplied by the
Claimant were unveiled and modelled.

15. As a result of the breaches alleged at paragraph 7 above, the Defendant had quickly to
remedy the problems experienced and reverted to using the old uniforms so that the staff
were able to continue working comfortably and safely.

16. The old uniforms are old fashioned, are not the same design or colour scheme as the
Uniforms unveiled at the Launch, and do not carry the new logo of the Defendant. The
Launch therefore failed to achieve its purpose of promoting the Defendant's re-branding,
and the Defendant has suffered negative publicity due to the problems with the Uniforms.
As a consequence, the Defendant will have to pay for a re-launch once new replacement
uniforms have been obtained.

17. On 1 May 2021 one of the aprons caught fire whilst it was hanging on a peg in the kitchen
of the Defendant’s Holborn restaurant at [insert address]. There was smoke damage to
the kitchen. As a result, the restaurant had to be closed until the kitchen could be re-
fitted.

18. By reason of the matters set out above, the Defendant has suffered loss of reputation, and
has sustained loss and damage.

4
 PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

Wasted cost of the Launch £100,000

Cost of re-fitting kitchen in Holborn restaurant £5,390

Loss of profits caused by closure of Holborn restaurant £[ ]

19. Further, the Defendant counterclaims interest pursuant to section 35A of the Senior
Courts Act 1981 on the amount found to be due at such rate and for such period as the
court thinks fit.

AND the Defendant counterclaims:

(1) Damages;

(2) Interest pursuant to section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981;

(3) Such further or other relief as the court sees fit to grant; and

(4) Costs.

JO OKONKWO
KINGSGATE CHAMBERS
[DATE]

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

*(I believe) The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence and Counterclaim are
true.

5
* I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth
without an honest belief in its truth.
* I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

Full name: Denis Stern

Name of Defendant’s legal representative’s firm: Price Prior LLP

signed ______________________________position or office held: Director

*(Defendant)(Litigation friend) (if signing on behalf of firm or company)
(Defendant’s legal representative)
*delete as appropriate

Price Prior LLP

68-70 Red Lion Street
London
WC1R 4NY