Divorcée Successfully Sues Dating Agency

The elite dating service failed to provide her with a suitable match.

A divorced mother-of-three has successfully sued a dating company after it failed to find her a suitable match.

Tereza Burki, 47, was awarded £12,600 ($22,100 AUD) in damages, after the U.K. High Court found the Seventy Thirty exclusive dating agency decieved her, and a further £500 ($875 AUD) for distress.

Burki, who lives in Chelsea, London, paid  £12,600 to join in 2013 after researching it and meeting with the company.

Image: Facebook Tereza Burki

She was told by Lemarc Thomas, the then-managing director, the agency had a "substantial number" of wealthy males who met the list of requirements she had provided.

But Burki did not have a "modest" list of requirements for a potential suitor, said Judge Richard Parkes QC.

Burki wanted a "sophisticated" man with a "wealthy lifestyle", preferably worked in the financial industry and enjoyed international travel.

She also wished to have more children having always wanted to have four.

Image: Tereza Burki Linkedin

“This case is about a woman looking for romantic happiness who says she was tricked into shopping in the wrong place, paying a large sum to a dating agency which, she says, made promises but failed to produce the goods.”

Parkes found that the agency had misled Burki, as it only had 100 active men as members at the time, and Thomas' had falsely represented the agency, as by "no stretch of the imagination" could that number be considered substantial.

The number also did not account for those who would be disregarded if they did not meet her requirements.

“Had Ms Burki known what the true size of the active membership was, she would not have joined Seventy Thirty,” he said.

But Seventy Thirty counter-sued Burki for libel, after she posted two online reviews the agency said were malicious.

Parkes  awarded the agency £5,000 ( $8750 AUD) for a Google review posted in April 2016, and said the company had had a short supply of men at the time, and it was not a "fundamentally dishonest or fraudulent operation".