Scriven v Scriven & Ors [2015] EWHC 1690 (Ch) (24 June 2015)

Scriven v Scriven & Ors [2015] EWHC 1690 (Ch) (24 June 2015)

The court found that Edward Scriven did not retain a beneficial interest in LTL or LBEL after the relevant meetings and events in 2007. There was no binding Family Business Agreement entitling him to a share in the new project. His removal as director and secretary was consistent with the agreement reached with his sons. The claims against Evans Mockler Limited for breach of fiduciary or professional duty were not made out. Edward's claims for rectification, damages, and other relief were dismissed.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1690 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Edward Scriven; First Defendant: Lee Daniel Scriven; Second Defendant: Daniel Edward Scriven; Third Defendant: Gary Brian Winston; Fourth Defendant: Evans Mockler Limited; Fifth Defendant (discontinued by Consent): Highstone Directors Limited; Sixth Defendant: London Tombs Limited (in administration)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Constructive Trust, Company Directorship and Shareholding, Negligence by Professional Advisers, Rectification of Register of Members, Family Business Disputes
Equity and Trusts Company Law Contract Law Tort (negligence) Breach of Trust Breach of Fiduciary Duty Breach of Contract Constructive Trust +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Scriven

Claimant

Lee Daniel Scriven

First Defendant

Daniel Edward Scriven

Second Defendant

Gary Brian Winston

Third Defendant

Evans Mockler Limited

Fourth Defendant

Highstone Directors Limited

Fifth Defendant (discontinued by Consent)

London Tombs Limited (in administration)

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Edward Scriven retained a beneficial interest in London Tombs Limited (LTL) and London Bridge Experience Limited (LBEL)
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding Family Business Agreement (FBA) entitling Edward to a share in the new business
  3. 3 Whether Edward was wrongfully removed as director and secretary of LTL

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Edward Scriven did not retain a beneficial interest in LTL or LBEL after the relevant meetings and events in 2007. There was no binding Family Business Agreement entitling him to a share in the new project. His removal as director and secretary was consistent with the agreement reached with his sons. The claims against Evans Mockler Limited for breach of fiduciary or professional duty were not made out. Edward's claims for rectification, damages, and other relief were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by Edward Scriven against the defendants are dismissed.
  • No rectification of the register of members of LTL is ordered.