A ‘runaway heiress’ has been accused of ‘accosting’ her former friend in Harvey Nichols in a last ditch attempt to thwart a damming court judgement which could see her jailed.
Fashionista Ekaterina Barrett is facing up to two years in prison after the High Court found that she had ‘forged’ a document during her million-pound court fight with the owner of a Knightsbridge boutique.
Bridget Hutchcroft, whose Pandora Dress Agency near Harrods in London was beloved by Princess Diana and Hollywood stars, sued former pal Ms Barrett and secured a court order demanding she pay back £1.6million in cash after borrowing money to get through a costly divorce.
Miss Hutchcroft’s legal team then launched a separate case, arguing that Ms Barrett showed contempt to the court by giving evidence which was ‘false and known by her to be false’.
But on the final day of the contempt hearing this week – just hours before the verdict was due to be heard – it was claimed Ms Barrett had ‘accosted’ Ms Hutchcroft that morning while she was having her eyebrows threaded in a Harvey Nicols beauty salon in Knightsbridge.
It was claimed Ekaterina Barrett ‘accosted’ Ms Hutchcroft while she was having her eyebrows threaded in a Harvey Nicols beauty salon in Knightsbridge
Bridget Hutchcroft (pictured), whose Pandora Dress Agency near Harrods in London was beloved by Princess Diana and Hollywood stars, sued former pal Ms Barrett
Ms Barrett’s barrister emailed the judge 40 minutes before the hearing began, claiming that Ms Hutchcroft had made an offer to ‘settle the proceedings’ and attached photos taken of the two women at the salon.
The photos, obtained by the Mail, show Ms Hutchcroft, 65, lying in a reclined chair having her eyebrows done as Ms Barrett, 68, poses for the camera next to her.
But Ms Hutchcroft strongly denied agreeing to any meeting or settlement and her barrister told the court that she had been ‘accosted’ and that there was ‘no discussion’ of a settlement.
The Judge refused permission for Ms Barrett to testify about the salon encounter and ‘derail’ the case.
Mrs Justice Heather Williams said: ‘The two women are not speaking to each other, are facing in different directions and there’s no separate evidence to say that they are discussing a settlement.’
It comes just over a year after the Mail tracked down Ms Barrett to her £19.2 million apartment in Monaco following our revelations that she had failed to pay the £1.6million she owed to Ms Hutchcroft.
Ekaterina Barrett is facing up to two years in prison after the High Court found that she had ‘forged’ a document during her million-pound court fight
The pair met when Ms Barrett began visiting Pandora seven years ago while she was still living in Mayfair and driving around town in a Bentley.
Ms Hutchcroft went on to lend her friend more than £1million for her divorce with few misgivings as Ms Barrett had claimed to be ‘fabulously wealthy’ and have ‘a substantial trust for her in Liechtenstein’ which she temporarily could not access, according to documents filed at the High Court.
But having later fled her £4.2million flat in Mayfair’s Curzon Square, Ms Barrett was discovered by the Mail in Monte Carlo wearing £5,000 worth of Chanel where she said: ‘I’m not paying back a penny.’
Now Ms Barrett is facing as much as a two-year jail sentence after the judge found she had put forward a ‘forged’ document to avoid stumping up the cash.
Finding her in contempt of court, Mrs Justice Heather Williams said Ms Barrett had produced a ‘settlement agreement’ – purportedly signed by Ms Hutchcroft – saying Ms Barrett only owed £800,000.
And in a short High Court hearing back in June 2023, Ms Barrett insisted that she is not a wealthy woman and ‘that her lifestyle is funded entirely by her family’.
However, Ms Hutchcroft’s lawyers claimed she lied about her wealth, masking the fact that she owns a pad in Monaco worth millions.
Ekaterina Barrett taking her three dogs for a walk
On top of that, Ms Barrett had faked a document with a forged signature in a bid to prove that the case against her had been settled long before reaching court, they claimed.
James McWilliams – for Ms Hutchcroft – attacked the document as an ‘obvious forgery’, adding: ‘The signature on the alleged settlement agreement is transparently not that of Ms Hutchcroft – as even a cursory comparison between the document and formal documents signed by her in these proceedings will show’.
It was also ‘fanciful’ to suggest that Ms Hutchcroft and Pandora would have struck a settlement deal with Ms Barrett for £800,000 when they already had a court judgement against her for more than £1.6million, the barrister argued.
Finding Ms Barrett in contempt of court, the judge said: ‘I am sure that the settlement agreement including the signature was a forgery.’
She added: ‘I have no doubt at all that she acted as alleged and it follows from my conclusions that I am satisfied that she acted dishonestly in telling the court that the claim had settled.’
The case has now been adjourned to await sentencing of Ms Barrett later this month.
