WHISKY SOUR
Legal storm as owner told £50,000 cask is not Scotch... because he moved it to WALES!
WHEN is a Scotch not a Scotch? The answer, it seems, is when it’s been sitting quietly in the corner of a distillery in rural Wales.
As a result, a £50,000 cask of whisky has ended up the subject of a bizarre courtroom wrangle.
The single malt spent the first ten years of its life in Scotland and was sold on the basis it was Scotch.
But a minor tweak to the law and an innocent trip south of the Border have conspired to rob the barrel of its prized status – and, therefore, much of its value – triggering a costly two-year legal row.
Last night, experts were left bemused at how the cask had become ‘tangled up in red tape’.
Industry authority Jim Murray, author of the Whisky Bible handbook, said: ‘Some Scotch whisky regulations are, frankly, bonkers. However, this one regarding Scotch having to stay within the confines of Scotland during maturation is one I support 100 per cent.
‘The regulation has worked well and it is just a shame that some
‘Some regulations are, frankly, bonkers’
good people have inadvertently fallen foul of it.’
All drams produced in Scotland have to be made according to the legal definition of Scotch.
The disputed whisky was produced at the Springbank distillery in Campbeltown, Argyll, in 1992, and was then stored in oak barrels in accordance with regulations.
But stricter laws were introduced in 2009 to help protect the value and integrity of Scotland’s national drink from impostors.
Ever since then, Scotch has had to be matured in Scotland and nowhere else – so it has become illegal to take it out of the country in a wooden cask.
Exporters who want to bottle it abroad to avoid tariffs have to decant the liquid into an ‘inert container’ such as a steel drum to take it over the Border.
The cask’s owner, John SavageOnstwedder, did that to relocate the whisky to his Da Mhile distillery near Carmarthen in 2012.
He then refilled the cask, allowing the whisky to continue maturing, not realising that he had voided any claim the spirit had to being Scotch.
In 2017, he instructed Glasgow auction house Mulberry Bank to find a buyer for the 180-litre barrel, which was billed as ‘Springbank Da Mhile 1992 organic single malt Scotch whisky’.
Soon after, it fetched £50,000. But when the new owner prepared to take it back to Scotland in January last year and asked for documentation of the previous cross-Border transfer, Mr Savage-Onstwedder’s blunder came to light.
But he refused to pay back the cash, claiming all parties had erred and that the auctioneer’s terms and conditions meant he was not liable for any faulty opinion given as part of the sale. However, in a preliminary ruling published last week, Glasgow sheriff Aisha Anwar said: ‘One can describe a whisky as bold or subtle, or as peaty or malty; those are expressions of opinion.
‘However…whether a cask connot tains “Scotch Whisky” is a matter of fact and not an expression of opinion. “Scotch Whisky” is a term defined by law. It is a term which has protected status.
‘To sell, advertise or promote any drink as Scotch Whisky when it is is a criminal offence. While legal definitions may generally be the source of much debate, in the present case, the parties are agreed that on a proper reading of the regulations, the cask does not contain Scotch Whisky.’
Sheriff Anwar continued the case to allow for further arguments to be heard.
Last night, Mr Savage-Onstwedder confirmed the dispute had now been settled out of court and he had refunded a portion of the cash.
He said: ‘I’ve got no further comment to make on that.
‘Did we split the difference? Something like that, yes.’
Springbank Da Mhile was the first organic whisky of modern times and sister casks have been selling for up to £80,000, while bottles swap hands for around £170. However, since the mix-up, Mr Savage-Onstwedder, 70, has been careful not to claim that his product is Scotch.
Earlier this year, a barrel was put up for auction in China billed as ‘single malt Celtic whisky’.
Auction house Mulberry Bank – which took on the claim on behalf of the new owner – declined to comment. But Mr Murray said: ‘Knowing John as I do, with all his charming eccentricities, I’m sure he’s just got tangled up in red tape. I’m sure he wasn’t trying to pull a fast one. The fact he put it through a reputable auction house rather than selling it privately means that the cask was open to scrutiny.’
‘It is a term which has protected status’