Bamboo toothbrush boss loses firm after using business funds for school fees

An eco entrepreneur has lost a battle to save her bamboo toothbrush company after a court heard that she used "unauthorised" business money to fund her "affluent lifestyle" and pay her children's boarding school fees.

Sophie Perhar, 48, blamed the failure of her firm, The Sustainable Bathroom Company Ltd, on finance boss David Slinger, 73.

She claimed that he had "improper motives" for calling in administrators to "suffocate and kill" her business after the pair had "a major falling out".

She also claimed that Mr Slinger was angry after she complained to his female business partner of having been subjected to "uncomfortable talk about his personal life" during meetings, including on health matters and his dating life.

Mrs Perhar's firm had been advanced about £500,000 by Mr Slinger's finance company between April 2022 and June 2023 to make her idea of developing and producing a bamboo electric toothbrush a reality.

That came after she secured a lucrative contract to supply the supermarket chain Aldi.

open image in gallery

But in June 2023, following an error that involved payments from Aldi ending up in the wrong bank account, Mr Slinger’s company, Synergy in Trade Ltd, demanded immediate repayment of £376,291. Just three hours later, he filed to put the company into administration.

Mrs Perhar went on to sue Leicestershire-based Synergy, alleging that Mr Slinger "decided to destroy" her company after she "went to his female business partner and complained about his inappropriate conduct".

She accused Mr Slinger of exposing her to "uncomfortable" personal chat and of being "super aggressive and unreasonable", claiming her complaints to his business partner, Cassandra McAlpine, ultimately led to him pulling the plug and calling in administrators.

Mr Slinger disputed the allegations against him, claiming that his company is still "out of pocket" to the tune of around £375,000, because Mrs Perhar did not repay in full.

Now a judge has cleared Mr Slinger and ruled the eco-entrepreneur caused her own company to fail through "unauthorised use" of business funds, which she ought to have handed over to Synergy, to support "her and her family's affluent lifestyle".

That included using them to pay £85,000 towards her children's boarding school fees.

open image in gallery

London's High Court heard that Mrs Perhar, whose husband Simon Perhar is a top corporate lawyer, launched The Sustainable Bathroom Company in January 2019 as a wholesaler of environmentally friendly bathroom products developed by herself.

She had initial success with a mosquito repellent called Mozzipatch and went on to develop an electric bamboo toothbrush with replaceable heads.

By early 2022, the company had developed the toothbrush to the point of having in place a supply agreement with Aldi, the German supermarket chain.

In April, Synergy agreed to lend the company up to £350,000 over three years to meet manufacturing costs in return for a 30 per cent share of profits, though the company in the end was advanced over £500,000, the court heard.

The toothbrushes were made in China and supplied to Aldi, with payments from the retailer due to go into an account controlled by Synergy, so that the finance company could be paid back before any other creditors.

But due to Aldi having the wrong bank details, payments to the tune of about €500,000 went into another business account controlled by Mrs Perhar instead.

Mrs Perhar then went on to pay out large sums from the account to meet her own "urgent" debts, including £85,000 towards her children's outstanding school fees and £40,000 to pawnbrokers, instead of handing the money to Synergy.

open image in gallery

Subsequently, on 5 June 2023, she received a demand for repayment of the loan, plus interest, on the basis that she had breached the terms of her company's borrowing agreement.

And just three hours later, Synergy, as secured creditors, put The Sustainable Bathroom Company Ltd into administration.

Mrs Perhar went on to sue at the High Court, claiming Synergy had "approved" her making the payments, rather than transferring the money to them.

Applying to the court to have the administrators' appointment declared invalid, she told Mr Justice Michael Green that she believes Synergy had no legal right to put her company into administration and that Mr Slinger appointed them for "vindictive" and "improper" reasons.

"His motive was to cause me as much financial ruin as possible because I went to his female business partner and complained about his conduct," she claimed.

"I find it unbelievable that he is being so incredibly vindictive."

But throwing out her case, the judge found that Mr Slinger had if anything taken an "open-minded and constructive approach" to financially supporting Mrs Perhar's business and that she brought disaster on herself.

"Mrs Perhar is a woman driven to succeed; in part because of a belief that the toothbrush is a product good for the planet," he said in his judgment.

"But there was an undercurrent to her evidence, of which we have seen indications already, that she and her vision were the centres of this relationship.

"Synergy was a tool along the way, useful for funding her good product, and in the event useful for assisting with her and her family's affluent lifestyle.

"She and her family came first; and when choices had to be made, that was hers, whatever the contractual documents said.

"It does not seem to have come to her mind that Synergy was actually as much a personal business as the company: it did not rely on outside lending; its money was effectively its shareholders', Mr Slinger and Mrs McAlpine; and they had devoted a substantial part of their working lives to it.

"Mrs Perhar did not seem to realise it, apparently being more occupied with potential future deals, but Synergy had given large opportunity for matters to be resolved; but that required her basic assistance, including providing information which Synergy was bound to want; and the funds to which it was entitled.

"Among other payments, not all of which can be purposed even now, Mrs Perhar had on 13 and 15 March paid school fees of, respectively, €40,000 and €58,000. She says she was 'paying what I urgently needed'.

"Rightly, as it would turn out, Synergy was getting twitchy.

"What is critical, both to the legal analysis and as explanatory of the parties' breakdown in relations, is that when on 28 February Mrs Perhar first became aware of the erroneous payments, and thereafter, she did not transfer them over to Synergy, or give it control over them, or, as the company was bound, treat them as trust monies; those contractual obligations were very largely ignored.

"Neither ... was she open and frank in her dealings with the receipts, again despite the contractual obligations, and, actually, also despite the open and informal relationship she had with Synergy and, at this point, Mr Slinger.

"While she had discussed her financial problems with Mr Slinger, there was no agreement to these payments."

Clearing Mr Slinger of "improper motive" for appointing administrators, the judge said: "Mrs Perhar has expressed the improper motive in a variety of ways. In closing, it came to this: that Mr Slinger was upset and angry having been called out over his behaviour, and therefore placed the company in administration to damage her reputation and destroy her business.

"The overwhelming evidence is that it was made to protect Synergy's financial position, so far as was possible, in the face of repeated and ongoing defalcations by the company.

"Whether solvent or not, the company failed because of Mrs Perhar's unauthorised use of the Aldi monies," he added, concluding: "Even were that wrong, and there was an improper motive, for the same reasons that there has been no substantial injustice, the administration must remain on foot.

"The alternative, of handing the company back to Mrs Perhar, when it has not traded for more than two years, has significant outstanding liabilities and no up-to-date accounts, would be unthinkable.

"At the latest, after two days it would enter administration again, if another insolvency process had not been initiated."