Glenn & Anor v Walker & Ors (Re Fifty Asset Management Ltd) [2025] EWHC 1286 (Ch) (23 May 2025)

Glenn & Anor v Walker & Ors (Re Fifty Asset Management Ltd) [2025] EWHC 1286 (Ch) (23 May 2025)

The court found that there was no overarching partnership or joint venture between the claimants and the defendants giving rise to fiduciary duties beyond those owed as company directors. The claimants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendants owed or breached any such fiduciary duties, or that there was an unlawful means conspiracy. The derivative claim on behalf of FAM also failed as no breach of statutory duty was established.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1286 (Ch)
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
Company/commercial / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Partnership and Joint Venture, Fiduciary Duties, Derivative Claims, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Directors' Duties
Company Law Equity and Trusts Commercial Law Partnership and Joint Venture Fiduciary Duties Derivative Claims Unlawful Means Conspiracy Directors' Duties

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Glenn

Claimant

Jonathan Slater

Claimant

Adam Walker

Defendant

Jeremy Dyer

Defendant

Fifty Asset Management Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company/commercial / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership or joint venture existed between the parties giving rise to fiduciary duties
  2. 2 Whether the defendants breached any fiduciary duties owed to the claimants
  3. 3 Whether the defendants perpetrated an unlawful means conspiracy against the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no overarching partnership or joint venture between the claimants and the defendants giving rise to fiduciary duties beyond those owed as company directors. The claimants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendants owed or breached any such fiduciary duties, or that there was an unlawful means conspiracy. The derivative claim on behalf of FAM also failed as no breach of statutory duty was established.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimants are dismissed.
  • No equitable compensation, damages, or account of profits awarded.