This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/11/edinburgh-woollen-mill-in-court-over-pure-cashmere-mislabelling
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Edinburgh Woollen Mill in court over 'pure cashmere' mislabelling Edinburgh Woollen Mill in court over 'pure cashmere' mislabelling | |
| (2 months later) | |
| Edinburgh Woollen Mill is facing a court case in Scotland over mislabelling of scarves as pure cashmere. | Edinburgh Woollen Mill is facing a court case in Scotland over mislabelling of scarves as pure cashmere. |
| The chain denies falsely claiming scarves were 100% cashmere on two occasions in 2014 and is challenging the testing process used by the local trading standards team. | The chain denies falsely claiming scarves were 100% cashmere on two occasions in 2014 and is challenging the testing process used by the local trading standards team. |
| The alleged offences, brought under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012, are said to have taken place at the company’s store in Church Place, Dumfries, which is one of its 265 high street shops. | The alleged offences, brought under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012, are said to have taken place at the company’s store in Church Place, Dumfries, which is one of its 265 high street shops. |
| A trial began at Dumfries sheriff court on 15 September but reporting restrictions prevented publicity until Tuesday. A lawyer for the retailer argued that reporting of the case could be “prejudicial to the legitimate interests” of the firm. | A trial began at Dumfries sheriff court on 15 September but reporting restrictions prevented publicity until Tuesday. A lawyer for the retailer argued that reporting of the case could be “prejudicial to the legitimate interests” of the firm. |
| “Now is the busiest time of year for the purchase of cashmere,” argued Susan Duff QC, acting for Edinburgh Woollen Mill. But Sheriff George Jamieson agreed to revoke the interim order he had previously made, after arguments by the BBC and ITV. | “Now is the busiest time of year for the purchase of cashmere,” argued Susan Duff QC, acting for Edinburgh Woollen Mill. But Sheriff George Jamieson agreed to revoke the interim order he had previously made, after arguments by the BBC and ITV. |
| The case is being brought after a trading standards officer purchased a blue tartan scarf in February 2014, and a red one four months later. Both scarves were reduced to £30 from £60 and were labelled as 100% Lochmere cashmere, the court heard. | The case is being brought after a trading standards officer purchased a blue tartan scarf in February 2014, and a red one four months later. Both scarves were reduced to £30 from £60 and were labelled as 100% Lochmere cashmere, the court heard. |
| Alison Irving, a trading standards officer at Dumfries and Galloway council, told the court that she cut the scarves into pieces, bagged and sealed them, and sent them off to be analysed at two different test labs – SGS UK and Intertek UK. It emerged she was acting on information from the Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute. | Alison Irving, a trading standards officer at Dumfries and Galloway council, told the court that she cut the scarves into pieces, bagged and sealed them, and sent them off to be analysed at two different test labs – SGS UK and Intertek UK. It emerged she was acting on information from the Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute. |
| On receiving reports from the test labs, Irving notified Edinburgh Woollen Mill that one scarf had been found to contain 84.4% cashmere, while the other was found to have 61.6% cashmere, with the remainder made up of other wool fibres. | On receiving reports from the test labs, Irving notified Edinburgh Woollen Mill that one scarf had been found to contain 84.4% cashmere, while the other was found to have 61.6% cashmere, with the remainder made up of other wool fibres. |
| Under cross-examination Irving said it was “odd” that the results received back from each of the labs had been different from each other. She said: “They were different from each other but neither said they were 100%.” | Under cross-examination Irving said it was “odd” that the results received back from each of the labs had been different from each other. She said: “They were different from each other but neither said they were 100%.” |
| The witness confirmed that after sending Edinburgh Woollen Mill a sample, the company sent back results from another test lab showing that both scarves were found to be 100% cashmere. | The witness confirmed that after sending Edinburgh Woollen Mill a sample, the company sent back results from another test lab showing that both scarves were found to be 100% cashmere. |
| Textile analyst Liqin Zhang gave evidence saying she identified wool and yak in the scarf samples. | Textile analyst Liqin Zhang gave evidence saying she identified wool and yak in the scarf samples. |
| Duff told Zhang that Edinburgh Woollen Mill had sent a DNA-tested 100% cashmere sample for her to analyse in August 2016. | Duff told Zhang that Edinburgh Woollen Mill had sent a DNA-tested 100% cashmere sample for her to analyse in August 2016. |
| The lawyer said the fabric had been subject to the same processes and dyed the same colour as the red scarf sample previously tested. | The lawyer said the fabric had been subject to the same processes and dyed the same colour as the red scarf sample previously tested. |
| Duff told Zhang: “You identified that 100% cashmere sample as 85% cashmere and 15% unidentifiable fibres. “The issue is with your identification and not with the product, isn’t it?” Zhang replied: “If the fibre structure is damaged I have to report it as unidentifiable, I can’t just guess.” | Duff told Zhang: “You identified that 100% cashmere sample as 85% cashmere and 15% unidentifiable fibres. “The issue is with your identification and not with the product, isn’t it?” Zhang replied: “If the fibre structure is damaged I have to report it as unidentifiable, I can’t just guess.” |
| Duff continued: “You couldn’t identify fibres that were 100% cashmere, that’s down to your ability?” Zhang replied: “That’s my decision on what my observation is. I’m not saying I’m perfect.” | Duff continued: “You couldn’t identify fibres that were 100% cashmere, that’s down to your ability?” Zhang replied: “That’s my decision on what my observation is. I’m not saying I’m perfect.” |
| The case continues. | The case continues. |