Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay has told the High Court he felt like "a performing monkey" as he built up his restaurant empire while father-in-law Christopher Hutcheson was "up to no good" in the office.
Now at the head of 28 restaurants and a cookery school, Ramsay is accusing his father-in-law of using a ghost writer machine to "forge" his signature and make him personally liable for the £640,000-a-year annual rental on the historic York & Albany pub near Regent's Park in London.
The chef is asking a judge to grant a declaration that the rental guarantee is not binding because his signature was used without his knowledge and authorisation when the 25-year lease was signed in 2007.
Mr Hutcheson acted as business manager for the Ramsay group of companies until the chef sacked both him and wife Tana's brother, Adam, on the grounds of "gross misconduct" in 2010.
Film director Gary Love, who owns the York & Albany, has described Ramsay's allegation as an "absurd" attempt to wriggle out of his rental commitments.
Today, in the second week of the court hearing, the chef was asked in cross-examination about emails in which he expressed his unhappiness about what was happening while Mr Hutcheson was managing the business.
Romie Tager QC, appearing for Mr Love, suggested to Ramsay: "You were complaining about him. You thought of him as treating you like a performing donkey - making you overwork away from the office while he was up to no good in the office."
Ramsay said, as Ms Ramsay listened, "Yes", then added he had in fact felt like a "performing monkey".
In order to clarify, Chancery Division judge Mr Justice Morgan, suggested to him his complaint was: "You were doing the donkey work. You were out there working day in, day out while (Mr Hutcheson) had a cushy number at the office where he was able to abstract personal funds for personal gain.
"I am not saying this is true, but this is what you are saying."
Ramsay agreed with the judge. He said the more he had dug into what had happened following Mr Hutcheson's sacking "the worst it got".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article