A prominent female entrepreneur in the eco-friendly sector has faced a tough legal setback after a judge determined that she misused company finances to cover personal expenses, specifically her children’s boarding school fees. This ruling marks the end of her battle to keep her bamboo toothbrush business afloat.

Sophie Perhar, aged 48, aimed to shift blame for the downfall of The Sustainable Company onto her finance director, David Slinger, who is 73 years old. Slinger, a co-director at the corporate finance firm Synergy in Trade Ltd, was forced to call in administrators when Perhar failed to repay over half of a substantial £500,000 loan. This loan was intended to bring her vision of a bamboo electric toothbrush to life.

Despite securing a promising contract with Aldi to supply her innovative toothbrushes, an unfortunate mishap occurred when payments from the supermarket were mistakenly sent to an incorrect bank account. This error prompted Synergy to demand immediate repayment of the borrowed funds.

Perhar, whose spouse, Simon Perhar, is an established corporate lawyer, accused Slinger of having ‘improper motives’ and alleged that he aimed to ‘suffocate and kill’ her business. In an effort to salvage her company, she took legal action against the Leicestershire-based finance firm.

However, the High Court ultimately dismissed her claims, with the judge concluding that Perhar herself was responsible for the company’s collapse. This decision underscores the complex challenges faced by entrepreneurs in maintaining financial integrity while navigating business growth.

She sued the Leicestershire-based firm, but now a High Court judge has dismissed her case and ruled the eco-entrepreneur caused her own company’s downfall. 

In his ruling, Mr Justice Michael Green said Mrs Perhar had used ‘unauthorised’ business funds to support ‘her and her family’s affluent lifestyle’, including paying £85,000 towards her children’s boarding school fees.

The court had heard how Mrs Perhar and Mr Slinger had had ‘a major falling out’ before the finance boss called in administrators. 

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

Female entrepreneur Sophie Perhar, 48, pictured outside London’s High Court carrying a Louis Vuitton bag  

She has failed in her bid to save her bamboo toothbrush firm The Sustainable Company after a judge ruled she used ‘unauthorised’ money to pay her children’s boarding school fees 

Mrs Perhar’s company had been advanced around £500,000 by Mr Slinger’s finance company between April 2022 and June 2023.

But in June 2023, Synergy demanded immediate repayment of £376,291 and just three hours later filed to put the company into administration.

Mrs Perhar alleged Mr Slinger ‘decided to destroy’ her company after she ‘went to his female business partner and complained about his inappropriate conduct’.

She accused him of exposing her to ‘uncomfortable’ personal chat and of being ‘super aggressive and unreasonable’.

Mrs Perhar claimed her complaints to his business partner, Cassandra McAlpine, ultimately led to him pulling the plug and calling in administrators.

Mr Slinger hotly disputed the allegations against him, claiming his company is still ‘out of pocket’ to the tune of around £375,000, because Mrs Perhar didn’t repay in full.

London’s High Court heard that Mrs Perhar 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 a supply agreement with Aldi in place.

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.

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.

Mrs Perhar had tried to blame her finance boss, David Slinger, 73, (pictured) for her firm’s failure after he called in administrators when she failed to pay back money she had borrowed

‘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.

‘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.’

The judge added that Mrs Perhar was not ‘open and frank in her dealings with the receipts, again despite the contractual obligations’.

‘While she had discussed her financial problems with Mr Slinger, there was no agreement to these payments,’ the judge ruled.

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.’