You have 2 more free articles remaining

Mr Woodham-Smith’s argument – and he stated it quite clearly in the court papers – was that 99% of his revenue from the Open Art Fair derived from the contracts with his exhibitors. By closing the event he therefore lost 1% of his revenue from visitors to the fair.

Nevertheless, he expected each and every exhibitor to pay their contracted obligations in full irrespective of how long he opened the fair, or even whether he opened it at all.

He says that he believes in sharing the pain but if the organiser is in receipt of 99% of their planned revenue then the burden of the pain is entirely upon the exhibitors.

It is that attitude to which very many exhibitors objected, whether they chose to settle or not.

Peter Cameron

The London Silver Vaults