Farnsworth v Chave & Ors [2025] EWHC 2677 (Ch) (15 October 2025)

Farnsworth v Chave & Ors [2025] EWHC 2677 (Ch) (15 October 2025)

It is not desirable for Aaron Chave and Kent Van Solutions Limited to remain as parties to the Cross-Petition because no substantive relief is sought against them under s994 Companies Act 2006, they were not involved in the conduct of the company's affairs in an unfairly prejudicial manner, and their continued inclusion would be an abuse of process. Authorisation to bring proceedings is otiose as Adam will control the company regardless of outcome. Their involvement is not necessary for the resolution of the real dispute, which is between Adam and Kevin.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2677 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Mr Adam Farnsworth; First Respondent: Mr Kevin Chave; Second Respondent: Mr Aaron Chave; Third Respondent: Kent Van Solutions Limited; Fourth Respondent: Essex and East London Van Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition (companies Act 2006 S994) / Preliminary Issue Hearing on Removal of Parties
Outcome
Second and Third Respondents (Aaron Chave and Kent Van Solutions Limited) removed as parties to the Cross-Petition.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Joinder and Removal of Parties, Section 994 Companies Act 2006, Section 996 Companies Act 2006, Civil Procedure Rules 19.2
Company Law Civil Procedure Unfair Prejudice Joinder and Removal of Parties Section 994 Companies Act 2006 Section 996 Companies Act 2006 Civil Procedure Rules 19.2

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Adam Farnsworth

Petitioner

Mr Kevin Chave

First Respondent

Mr Aaron Chave

Second Respondent

Kent Van Solutions Limited

Third Respondent

Essex and East London Van Services Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition (companies Act 2006 S994) / Preliminary Issue Hearing on Removal of Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second and Third Respondents (Aaron Chave and Kent Van Solutions Limited) should remain as parties to the Cross-Petition under s994 Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether any relief is properly sought against them justifying their continued joinder
  3. 3 Whether their inclusion is desirable under CPR 19.2

Ratio Decidendi

It is not desirable for Aaron Chave and Kent Van Solutions Limited to remain as parties to the Cross-Petition because no substantive relief is sought against them under s994 Companies Act 2006, they were not involved in the conduct of the company's affairs in an unfairly prejudicial manner, and their continued inclusion would be an abuse of process. Authorisation to bring proceedings is otiose as Adam will control the company regardless of outcome. Their involvement is not necessary for the resolution of the real dispute, which is between Adam and Kevin.

Court Disposition

Second and Third Respondents (Aaron Chave and Kent Van Solutions Limited) removed as parties to the Cross-Petition.

Orders

  • Aaron Chave and Kent Van Solutions Limited shall cease to be parties to the Cross-Petition.
  • Time for permission to appeal extended to 21 days after the consequentials hearing.