Riley v Aidiniantz & Anor [2025] EWHC 3222 (Ch) (11 December 2025)

Riley v Aidiniantz & Anor [2025] EWHC 3222 (Ch) (11 December 2025)

The section 423 claim is not time-barred, as the limitation period is twelve years and/or the cause of action only arose when the claimant became a 'victim' after exhaustion of security funds. The 2013 Tomlin Order does not bar the present claim, as it was not intended to preclude claims of the present type. The claims raise triable issues of intention regarding the share transfers and beneficial ownership, unsuitable for summary determination. The applications for strike out, summary judgment, civil restraint order, and security for costs are dismissed.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3222 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Linda Riley; First Defendant: John Aidiniantz; Second Defendant: Andrea von Ehrenstein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/trusts/probate / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Defendants' applications for strike out, summary judgment, civil restraint order, and security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transactions at an Undervalue, Limitation Periods, Enforcement of Judgments, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Presumption of Advancement, Civil Restraint Orders, Security for Costs
Insolvency Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Transactions at an Undervalue Limitation Periods Enforcement of Judgments Summary Judgment Strike Out +3 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Riley

Claimant

John Aidiniantz

First Defendant

Andrea von Ehrenstein

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/trusts/probate / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the claim is precluded by a 2013 Tomlin Order settlement agreement
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed for abuse of process or issue estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The section 423 claim is not time-barred, as the limitation period is twelve years and/or the cause of action only arose when the claimant became a 'victim' after exhaustion of security funds. The 2013 Tomlin Order does not bar the present claim, as it was not intended to preclude claims of the present type. The claims raise triable issues of intention regarding the share transfers and beneficial ownership, unsuitable for summary determination. The applications for strike out, summary judgment, civil restraint order, and security for costs are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for strike out, summary judgment, civil restraint order, and security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for strike out dismissed.
  • Defendants' application for summary judgment dismissed.