Angela Mary Heyes & Anor v Sarah Holt
[2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
Thomas Russell William Abrey v Richard Symon Abrey & Ors
31 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2689 (Ch)
High Court
A family farm business had a big fight between partners. One partner claimed he was being unfairly pushed out. The judge said the partner had a right to be involved and issued an order stopping the others from excluding him while they sorted things out. This order let the farm keep running but with some restrictions on the partners' behaviours to stop the fight from getting worse.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between partners in a substantial family farming business (R G Abrey Farms) in Norfolk and Suffolk.
- •Claimant (Thomas Abrey) alleges wrongful exclusion from the partnership business.
- •Defendants (Richard, Robert, Giles, and Matthew Abrey) allege Claimant's difficult behavior and misconduct towards employees.
- •Claimant removed as a director of a related company (A. F. Machinery Limited).
- •Separate arbitration proceedings ongoing regarding partnership dissolution.
- •Interim injunction sought by Claimant to prevent exclusion from partnership business.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions in relation to arbitral proceedings under s.44(2)(e) and (3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, where urgency is established.
Arbitration Act 1996
Three-stage test for interim relief: serious issue to be tried; inadequacy of damages; balance of convenience.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
Court should take the course with the lower risk of injustice if wrong.
Films Rover International v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670
Right of a partner to participate in the management of the partnership business is a basic right, protectable by injunction.
Partnership Act 1890, s.24(5); Hall v. Hall (1850) 12 Beavan 414
Considerations regarding quasi-partnership arrangements and removal of directors in the context of disputes.
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries & Ors [1973]; Chu v Lau [2020]
Outcomes
Interim injunction granted in favour of the Claimant.
Serious issue to be tried regarding Claimant's exclusion from the partnership; damages inadequate remedy; balance of convenience favours injunction to prevent further exclusion and maintain stability pending final resolution.
Injunction terms include limitations based on existing 'Working Arrangements' (amended), focusing on Claimant's role in the onion business and essential overarching farm functions.
Balancing Claimant's rights with concerns about employee relations and the need to maintain business functionality.
No formal undertakings required from Claimant, but his agreement to abide by the amended Working Arrangements recorded.
Principle of avoiding unnecessary restrictions on Claimant's rights, given the context of the application.