Divorced City worker seeking international jet-setter 'with multiple homes' sues elite dating agency for 'distress' after she failed to meet anyone despite promise of wealthy 'bachelors you dream of' for £12k sign-up fee

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Divorce Tereza Burki (pictured), who lives in Belgravia, central London, has taken Seventy Thirty to the High Court after failing to find love using their matchmaking service A City worker is suing an elite dating service for her £12,600 annual fee after accusing them of not putting her in touch with 'the man of my dreams'.  

Tereza Burki, who lives in Belgravia, central London, has taken Seventy Thirty to the High Court after they failed to find the divorcee a rich and successful man who wanted to have a baby with her.

The 47-year-old Dutch mother-of-three also told them 'her ideal partner would be someone with multiple residences'.

The dating business, based close to Harrods in Knightsbridge, calls itself the 'ultimate matchmaking service' with an 'international membership comprising of men and women of affluence and influence'.

In return clients get their own personal matchmaking specialist who is also a qualified psychologist and a relationship coach who matches them with  'entrepreneurs, senior businesspeople, hedge fund specialists' and 'those who come from wealthy and prestigious backgrounds.'

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited The dating company is counter-suing her for defamation after she called it a 'scam' But Ms Burki is suing because despite being promised 'bachelors you dream of meeting' - she claims these never materialised, causing her 'distress and frustration'.

She claims she was not put in touch with a single man she liked and whose profiles had been shown to her before she paid the £12,600 membership fee for the business' 'gold package'.

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Tereza Burki has taken Seventy Thirty to the High Court after they failed to find her a rich and successful man who wanted to have a baby with her Ms Burki told the High Court: 'You shouldn't promise people who are in a fragile state of mind, in their mid-40s, the man of their dreams'.

The dating company, which takes its name from the work life balance if its clientele - 70/30 -  is counter-suing the City financier and consultant for defamation after she called it a 'scam' online.

Its founder Susie Ambrose insists Ms Burki was offered six matches, all of them 'plainly successful men in her preferred age bracket who were open to having children'. It is not clear if she ever met any of those men for dates.

Judge Mr Justice Julian Knowles, who will rule in the case in the next month, quoted lyrics from The Beatles' hit 'Can't Buy Me Love' during proceedings.

He said: 'I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love', adding: 'The parties in these two claims would agree and disagree'.  

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Ms Burki claims she was never put in contact with any of the men used to lure her into signing up

The battle started a year after Ms Burki joined in 2015 and was refused a refund.

Mr Justice Julian Knowles said: 'Seventy Thirty Limited is a company providing romantic matchmaking services for wealthy single people.

'It describes itself as having matched thousands of affluent and successful people.

'Tereza Burki is one of its former clients. In late 2014 she paid Seventy Thirty a fee of £12,600 in return for introductions to rich, eligible men.

'She was dissatisfied to put it mildly with the service she received. She has sued Seventy Thirty in deceit and misrepresentation for the return of her membership fee and for damages for 'distress, upset, disappointment and frustration'.'

The High Court heard Miss Burki was looking for a high-earning international jet-setter who was also open to having children with her.

She says she was shown profiles of men she liked and, based on that and the company's claims over the number of suitable men it had on offer, she paid £12,600 to join in 2014.

But she became unhappy with the service when she was shown profiles she did not deem to match her criteria. 

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Seventy Thirty calls itself the 'ultimate matchmaking service' with an 'international membership comprising of men and women of affluence and influence'

Her barrister, Jonathan Edwards, said Miss Burki's claim is based on the company's alleged misrepresentations about the type and number of men it had on its books.

Giving evidence, Miss Burki told Judge Richard Parkes QC: 'You shouldn't promise people who are in a fragile state of mind, in their mid-40s, the man of their dreams.

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited Founder Susie Ambrose has been accused misrepresenting the type and number of men it had on its books

'You are entrusting a service you believe is professional, who will take care of your interests and have your best interests at heart.'

Miss Burki, who lives in a street in Chelsea where flats go for over £3m, said she had paid thousands to join and did not want to be matched to men who had not paid a penny.

Men who didn't pay were less likely to be committed to finding a partner and might not be as well-off as claimed, she told the court.

She said she had been advised to have professional photos taken for her profile, but that pictures of the men she was offered were 'far removed' from professional.

She had expected an 'in-depth analysis of characters, a whole scientific approach' to finding her a soulmate, she added.

Backing her claim, another former female member, who cannot be named, said: 'My issue with some of the profiles was they weren't available. These people weren't engaged in wanting to meet somebody.'

But, representing the company, barrister Lisa Lacob said the database had always contained a 'substantial number' of men who were suitable for Miss Burki's requirements.

The company has a 9,000-strong database, of which 1,000 would have been actively seeking matches at the time, she said.

'Seventy Thirty maintains an extensive database of men and women who can reasonably be described as wealthy and/or successful,' she continued.

'Based on the preferences expressed by Miss Burki, the company identified 70 men in its database as possible matches for her.

'All were Gold members who had paid for their membership. Each of these men could reasonably be described as 'high net worth'.'

Miss Lacob claimed Miss Burki was offered six matches, all of them 'plainly successful men in her preferred age bracket who were open to having children'.

Susie Ambrose, founder of the company, described how the agency searches its database to find matches for members.

'Smoker, non-smoker. People who drink, people who don't. Those who want to get married, those who want children,' she said.

She added that those marked in green on the company's database are 'hot' members, adding: 'They are high profile and good looking people'.

© Provided by Associated Newspapers Limited The company says Ms Burki was offered six matches, all of them 'plainly successful men in her preferred age bracket who were open to having children'

Mr Edwards said Miss Burki had been particularly interested in one particular man she had been shown before her membership became live.

'Miss Burki believes that she was sent those details to persuade her to pay up the rest of the money,' he said.

But Miss Ambrose responded: 'That is ridiculous. We are not so desperate for money, absolutely it's not true.'

She denied claiming that the agency added more than 1,000 new members a year and said discrepancies in statistics could be down to a hacker or computer crash.

'This is not Match.com - there are not thousands and thousands of members,' she said. 'I said we had 1,000 active members, not members joining.'

She added: 'For us, it is important that the gentleman or lady are single and available for matchmaking, and that's as far as it goes. Keeping all these statistics means nothing to us.

'If they are happy, they don't want to complain. People are going on dates and getting married.

'These little data errors don't affect the lives of our members.'

The company claims that Miss Burki's reviews on Google and Yelp, referring to Seventy Thirty as a 'scam' and 'fraudulent', were a 'malicious' attempt to ruin the business.

They had caused at least three prospective clients not to join up - costing the company at least £43,000 in membership fees, said Miss Lacob.

'A person who feels they have not received an adequate service is not free to accuse a business of "fraud" with impunity,' she continued.

'If they do so, and what they say is defamatory, they cannot say in answer to a claim for defamation: I was unhappy with your service.

'It is one thing to give a bad review; it is another to spread lies.'

The barrister added: 'This was a malicious attempt to ruin the company's business in retaliation for the fact that it had rejected her opportunistic attempt to recoup the fees she had paid for the company's services.'

Miss Burki denies defamation and malicious falsehood, saying her words reflected her honestly held views of the service she received.  

Seventy-Thirty claimed its clients 'value discretion and expect a top level of service in exclusive matchmaking, as they do in all the other aspects of their affluent lives.'

Seventy-Thirty denies her allegations. Judge Parkes reserved judgment on the case until a later date.