The barrister representing the claimants in a High Court case brought against Reggae Reggae sauce entrepreneur Levi Roots has branded him a “barefaced liar”.

Levi Roots
5KBW Chambers’ Ian Glen QC made the statement about the Jamaican-born businessman in a £600,000 breach of confidence and breach of contract case being brought by Roots’ former best friend Tony Bailey and financial adviser Sylvester Williams.
Bailey claims that Roots stole the recipe for the sauce from him and cut him out of an agreement to launch the sauce together when he appeared on BBC television programme Dragon’s Den alone.
Appearing on the show in 2007, Roots allegedly claimed that the recipe was handed down by his grandmother. He secured a £50,000 investment and, since then, has gone on to make millions from the condiment he purported to be the taste of the Notting Hill Carnival for over a decade.
Roots ran a jerk chicken stall with Bailey at the annual celebration of West Indian culture for 15 years but denies having stolen the ‘secret formula’. He claims it originated from a basic recipe being used at Bailey’s Brixton-based Caribbean restaurant.
However, giving evidence, a mutual friend of the pair said that Roots was a salesman who had no idea how to make the sauce until Bailey showed him.
At the hearing Glen read aloud from a label on a bottle of Reggae Reggae sauce. “It says ’Our family in Jamaica have been blending home-made jerk sauce since way back, and for years it’s been the taste of London’s Notting Hill Carnival’. Is that true?,” he said.
Roots replied: “No, that’s not true. It’s a marketing ploy.”
Roots allegedly confessed to having concocted the story on Dragons’ Den as a way of promoting the product, but claims the stall was only successful because it was “a Levi Roots stall”.
He said his business agreement with Bailey had terminated before he went on the show and insisted that Bailey and Williams have no rights to the business.
Earlier this year, Roots published a business book giving practical advice on launching a successful business as well as 10 essential rules that Roots believes should underpin any entrepreneurial value.
Glen was instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton lawyer Gordon Clough for Bailey and Williams.
11 South Square Chambers’ Mark Vanhegan was instructed to act for Roots by EMW partner Mark Rondel.
The case continues and a judgment is expected next Thursday (24 November).
Readers' comments (8)
TheLawMap Associate | 18-Nov-2011 1:20 pm
Having followed Levi's rise to fame, something of rags to riches, I wonder why there hadn't been stringent checks by the investors (BBC dragons) prior to associating with him? TheLawMap
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stir it up ! | 18-Nov-2011 1:45 pm
Surely 'ragga to riches'....
Either that barrister has some sauce making that statement or Levi is being a bit of a jerk.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Nov-2011 1:47 pm
Sounds like Mr Glen was accusing the Defendant of having effected a Roots Manuva.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colonel Sanders' Former Business Partner | 21-Nov-2011 11:44 am
Tony Bailey (mmmm creamy),
I feel your pain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 3:03 am
The Roots of the matter seems to be that they can Bailey stand each other
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Koolio | 22-Nov-2011 10:07 pm
LawMap Associate, it seems the dragons made money from this business investment. Never allow a person's character get in the way of good bussiness.
But seriously this case, on the reports so far, seem a pretty weighted in favour of the sauce man. What really does the freinds have???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mrs C | 26-Nov-2011 1:14 pm
How can a man be judged a liar and a fraud, but then still win the case. The claimants were saying the same thing as the judge. Oh, i forgot, money talks...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Dec-2011 6:51 pm
Levi won his case hands down, and was awarded indemnity cost. The judge said "This was a dishonest claim, dishonestly advanced". It seems that the "barefaced liar" accusation was just a bit of grandstanding for the headlines - as part of the strategy behind this "dishonest claim" (brought on an CFA). It didn't win the case though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment