Charles Saatchi expected in court to answer questions about marriage to Nigella
28 NOVEMBER 2013
Art dealer Charles Saatchi was due in court Thursday where he was expected to answer questions about his marriage to ex-wife Nigella Lawson.
He will be questioned as part of the trial against his and Nigela's former assistants, who are accused of using credit cards loaned to them by the family to spend more than £685,000 on themselves.
CLICK ON PHOTOS TO ENLARGE
Italian sisters Francesca and Elisabetta Grillo, who deny the charges against them, apparently spent the money on luxury goods and lived the "high life" like that "portrayed in glossy magazines", Jane Carpenter told jurors on Wednesday.
The court had previously heard claims that Nigella used cocaine, cannabis and prescription pills on a daily basis and let her PAs use Charles' company credit card to keep her secret.
It was claimed the 53-year-old 'Domestic Goddess' had the 'non-verbal' agreement with the sisters in return for an understanding that they wouldn't leak details of her drug use.
Isleworth Crown Court in London heard on Tuesday that Art collector Charles sent his ex-wife an email saying he believed "every word" of the sisters' claims and added that he thought she had authorised their spending because she was so under the influence of drugs she couldn't remember what she had told them to spend money on.
Legal representatives for the culinary star have described the allegations as "totally scurrilous" and untrue.
Sisters Francesca and Elisabetta Grillo, former PAs of Nigella and Charles
Nigella is expected to give evidence at a later date.
Earlier this year she filed for divorce from her husband of 10 years on the grounds of his "continued unreasonable behaviour".
Their relationship came to an end after pictures were published of Charles holding Nigella's throat at a top London restaurant.
Charles initially dismissed the incident as a "playful tiff" but later accepted a police caution for assault. He told the Mail on Sunday that the pictures gave a "wholly different and incorrect implication".