From another source I understand it is Sattchi's accountants that reported the Grillo sisters.

Thanks Fluffs. was Saatchi asked to give evidence.

Not sure what you mean, sprouty.     I'm just working on the knowledge I have - you have a credit card, if someone else uses it, it's fraud.   If, however, you have given someone else a card to use on that account and they are legally entitled to use it, you're liable for what they spend.     It seems a fairly clear case to me - they were authorised to use the account or they weren't.

To understand how this pair of rich, powerful and experienced public figures came to tear themselves apart we have to go back to late June 2012. Lawson was filming her BBC programme Nigellissima and had taken Elisabetta Grillo, her trusted Italian "rock" of an assistant, on location to watch her film a lasagne recipe Grillo had brought from her mother's kitchen in Italy.

Grillo had often made the dish for Lawson's children and it was emblematic of how the sisters had become like family for Lawson, whose mother, sister and first husband, John Diamond, had all died of cancer. Lawson sent Grillo a message after the shoot telling her how lucky she felt to have her in her life.

But within days everything had changed. Elisabetta's younger sister, Francesca, also an assistant to the gilded couple, seemed to have ordered a taxi on a household account to take her to a polo match in Berkshire. Saatchi asked his accountant, Rahul Gajjar, to investigate and he uncovered suspected unauthorised spending not just on taxis but on luxury hotels, flights, designer clothes and cash withdrawals. The sisters were hauled in and the art dealer erupted. "You can 'F-word' hide anywhere in Italy, but I will find you and destroy you," he reportedly said.

The Grillos wrote a grovelling email to Saatchi and Lawson saying they were deeply sorry and that the couple had been "like a mother and father". They said it wasn't a mea culpa but a desire to mend obvious hurt.

But Saatchi's proposal to halve their wages as "a penance" failed when they complained: "We're being treated worse than Filipino slaves," Gajjar recalled. Saatchi offered to allow Francesca to live rent-free in Battersea while she repaid the debt. "I'd rather go to jail," she shot back.

Two other personal assistants working on Lawson's "Team Cupcake", Anzelle Wasserman and Alice Binks, also both spent heavily on the cards, both spending more than Elisabetta Grillo over the period, but their expenses were considered authorised.

Lawson and Saatchi came down hard on the Grillos.

Saatchi, who uses litigation as a form of conversation, according to Lawson, launched a high court action and made a criminal complaint. Both courses of action were at Lawson's instigation, Saatchi's lawyers have claimed. But sources close to Lawson said she felt compelled to go along with her husband's wishes.

Elisabetta Grillo has said Lawson stood by the fraud allegations "because of her fear of Mr Saatchi" and that if she didn't he would think the spending was allowed by her because otherwise her drug use would have been exposed. The women were arrested in August and said nothing, but charges accusing them of a four-year fraud worth £685,000 followed.

Lawson hired Elisabetta in 1999 when Diamond was dying of cancer. She was "a rock" at an anguished time and moved with her to the Saatchi household. Francesca, then 22, was taken on as a housekeeper in 2002. The sisters even took the children to their family home in Calabria. They were entrusted with Coutts credit cards supplied to them for household spending that rose to £100,000 month, a level of spending that led to the fraud charges and the dispute about whether it was authorised.

Apparently yes, but I haven't found a transcript of it as yet.

Thanks Fluffs, I could have missed it either on the news or online but I've not seen a mention of his evidence, have only read about Nigella in the dock

The question is over the niceties of the authorisation. Apparently they were only authorised to use it for household stuff. Your liability is to the Credit Card company to pay off the amount due, but that is a different aspect and does not mean you can't claim that it was used for non-authorised agreed stuff between yourselves.

I still think it's incredibly naive of them then... and I want someone to give me a credit card on their account.     Obviously the jury agrees with me - and if there was any contract saying what it could be spent on, they would have to be found guilty of fraud.   Seems it was a 'gentleman's' agreement (I use that term loosely) so I don't see how they could be found guilty really.

The more I read about it the more grey and murky it all gets!

Just got her programme on.

She said "the way to a stress free Christmas is not to put pressure on yourself".

So a high profile court case just before Christmas is not a good idea then Nigella!!!