The Conditioning House Ltd v JBG Enterprises Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3260 (Ch) (12 December 2025)

The Conditioning House Ltd v JBG Enterprises Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 3260 (Ch) (12 December 2025)

The court found that the Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendants conspired unlawfully or dishonestly assisted Mr Priestley's breaches of duty. The evidence did not establish that JBGE or Mr Giannotti acted dishonestly or in concert with Mr Priestley to procure a sale at an undervalue. The sale process, while imperfect, was not shown to be a sham or to fall below the standard required of a mortgagee. The price achieved was supported by independent valuation evidence, and there was insufficient evidence of loss caused by any actionable wrongdoing.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3260 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Conditioning House Limited; First Defendant: JBG Enterprises Limited; Second Defendant: John Giannotti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Liability Trial Following Split Trial Order; Quantum Reserved for Future Trial If Liability Established
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Director's Duties, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, Mortgagee's Duty of Care, Sale at Undervalue, Equitable Compensation
Company Law Equity and Trusts Property Law Director's Duties Unlawful Means Conspiracy Dishonest Assistance Mortgagee's Duty of Care Sale at Undervalue +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Conditioning House Limited

Claimant

JBG Enterprises Limited

First Defendant

John Giannotti

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Liability Trial Following Split Trial Order; Quantum Reserved for Future Trial If Liability Established

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an unlawful means conspiracy involving the Defendants or either of them
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants or either of them dishonestly assisted Mr Priestley's breaches of duty as a director
  3. 3 Whether JBGE breached its equitable duty as mortgagee to take reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for the Property

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendants conspired unlawfully or dishonestly assisted Mr Priestley's breaches of duty. The evidence did not establish that JBGE or Mr Giannotti acted dishonestly or in concert with Mr Priestley to procure a sale at an undervalue. The sale process, while imperfect, was not shown to be a sham or to fall below the standard required of a mortgagee. The price achieved was supported by independent valuation evidence, and there was insufficient evidence of loss caused by any actionable wrongdoing.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims against the Defendants are dismissed.
  • Costs to be determined following submissions.