Navaian v King Charles III Charitable Fund: High Court strikes out £6m fundraising dispute

The High Court has granted summary judgement in favour of the King Charles III Charitable Fund, FareShare UK and a senior volunteer in a claim arising from a collapsed charitable fundraising initiative linked to the Coronation Food Project.

In Azadeh Amanda Navaian & Anor v King Charles III Charitable Fund & Ors [2026] EWHC 1220 (KB), Mr Justice Mansfield dismissed the overwhelming majority of a £6 million claim brought by Ms Navaian and her company, Marici London Ltd, finding no realistic prospect of success on any of the three causes of action advanced: breach of contract, misrepresentation, and unlawful interference with economic relations.

Background

The dispute arose from a three-month collaboration in 2024 between the claimants and representatives of the Coronation Food Project (CFP), a food redistribution initiative established by the King and operated through KCCF and FareShare. The proposed initiative comprised a "Conscious Dining" fundraising dinner and a charitable T-shirt e-commerce campaign. Both were cancelled on 15 July 2024, the day before they were due to launch.

Ms Navaian, appearing in person, contended that a binding oral agreement had been concluded at a Zoom meeting on 29 April 2024, and that the defendants' subsequent conduct constituted breach of that agreement, misrepresentation and tortious interference with her commercial relationships.

The oral agreement

The centrepiece of the claim was the alleged oral agreement said to have been concluded at the April meeting with Dame Martina Milburn and Ms Dana-Haeri. Mansfield J found the arrangement wholly insufficiently certain to give rise to binding contractual obligations, noting that the pleaded terms included aspirations such as endorsement "in front of business stakeholders as the creator of a social entrepreneurship generating £millions" and commitments with no ascertainable metrics.

Critically, the court found no evidence of an intention to create legal relations at that early stage. Subsequent correspondence, including two sets of pre-action solicitors' letters running to a combined 17 pages, made no mention of the April meeting or the alleged oral agreement whatsoever. The court also noted that Ms Navaian herself had been willing to enter into a separate written agreement with FareShare in June 2024 without reference to any pre-existing binding arrangement.

Misrepresentation and tortious interference

The misrepresentation claim was dismissed as a repackaging of the failed contract claim. No actionable false statement of fact was identified; the bulk of the complaints related to unfulfilled intentions and changed circumstances. The court declined to treat the heading "Negligent Misrepresentation and possibly Fraudulent" as adequate pleading of fraud, describing such an allegation as entirely inappropriate without specific particulars.

The tortious interference claim fared no better. The pleading disclosed no proper basis for finding that the defendants had used unlawful means against third parties, nor that they had intended to cause harm to the claimants. The contemporaneous exchanges on the day of the cancellation showed Ms Navaian herself expressing relief at the dinner's postponement.

The surviving claim

One narrow issue was preserved. The court allowed the claimants 28 days to file an amended pleading limited to a claim for up to £25,000 in expenses under a separate reimbursement agreement, which FareShare had acknowledged but declined to honour on the basis that no itemised invoice had been provided. Mansfield J was unimpressed by that justification, noting it was far from clear that itemisation formed part of the agreed terms. The defendants' open offer to pay the full £25,000 was confirmed to remain open for 14 days following the judgement.

If no amended pleading is filed, the claim will be struck out in its entirety.