Ralph Lauren loses court battle over Glasgow hairdresser

RALPH Lauren, the luxury clothing line, considers itself to be a cut above the common store and is particular about the company it keeps.

So when a hairdressing salon leased space in the same building in Glasgow's Merchant City, the American giant sought a court order banning the crimpers as insufficiently "high quality".

However, the Court of Session has now rejected the company's bid to prevent John Quinn Salons from opening a flagship salon at the heart of Glasgow's best-known fashion district.

The American store believed that under the terms of its current lease, the owner of the building, which is the London Borough of Southwark's Pension Fund, had agreed not to lease the space to retailers "other than high-quality fashion retailers".

Lawyers for the brand, whose customers include Katie Holmes and Jessica Alba, argued that they had a letter from the landlords which granted Ralph Lauren the right of approval over any new neighbours.

In recent years the Merchant City has drawn a host of high- end stores such as Mulberry, Jaeger, Crombie and Agent Provocateur.

But Lord Glennie of the Court of Session decided that the landlords were entitled to lease the space, which had been empty for ten years, to a non-retail company.

While lawyers for Ralph Lauren argued that the hair salon was a retailer as it sold hair products, Lord Glennie disagreed stating: "I should add that despite Mr Dunlop's able argument, it seemed to me well nigh impossible to describe a hairdressing salon as a retailer.

"It may well sell hair and beauty treatments, but this is merely an adjunct of its main business which is the provision of hairdressing services. As it is not a retailer, there is no requirement for the pursuer's approval."

Ralph Lauren's stance is understood to have come as a surprise to John Quinn, who has built up a chain of salons in Glasgow's Southside, where he counts many of the city's wealthiest residents among his clients. As the legal challenge was between Ralph Lauren and the London Borough of Southwark's Pension Fund, the building's owner, he only recently became aware of the legal action, but was unavailable for comment last night.

Ralph Lauren and the London Borough of Southwark were also unavailable for comment.

However, Craig Connal QC, a solicitor advocate in the litigation practice at law firm McGrigors which was not directly involved in the case, says that the legal wrangling seemed "unfortunate to say the least" for the fashion house.

Mr Connal said: "From what emerged in court, there appears to be a clear gap between expectation and reality.Ralph Lauren seems to have signed documents believing that there were provisions to allow it control over the types of business which could be carried out in the surrounding area.

"However, it's clear that they did not have the level of influence which they thought they had.

"Some of the argument seems to have been around whether or not a hair salon counts as a retailer, but the nub of the problem seems to have been in only using the word 'retailer', and not focusing on the prospect of other potential occupiers."