Peter Glenn & Anor v Adam Walker & Ors

Peter Glenn & Anor v Adam Walker & Ors

No partnership or joint venture existed between the parties; business was conducted through corporate entities. No fiduciary duties arose between claimants and defendants outside company directorships. Defendants' actions were justified by legitimate concerns and claimants' own conduct precipitated the breakdown. No breach of fiduciary duty, no unlawful means conspiracy, and no breach of statutory duties to FAM were established. All claims fail.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Glenn; Claimant: Jonathan Slater; Defendant: Adam Walker; Defendant: Jeremy Dyer; Defendant: Fifty Asset Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Joint Venture, Partnership, Derivative Claim, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Directors' Duties, Asset Management, Shareholder Rights
Company Law Partnership Law Equity Commercial Law Fiduciary Duties Joint Venture Partnership Derivative Claim +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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Glenn

Claimant

Jonathan Slater

Claimant

Adam Walker

Defendant

Jeremy Dyer

Defendant

Fifty Asset Management Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership or joint venture existed giving rise to fiduciary duties between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached fiduciary duties or perpetrated an unlawful means conspiracy
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were entitled to equitable compensation, damages, or an account of profits

Ratio Decidendi

No partnership or joint venture existed between the parties; business was conducted through corporate entities. No fiduciary duties arose between claimants and defendants outside company directorships. Defendants' actions were justified by legitimate concerns and claimants' own conduct precipitated the breakdown. No breach of fiduciary duty, no unlawful means conspiracy, and no breach of statutory duties to FAM were established. All claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed