A Norfolk family is locked in a bitter civil war over the control of their £80m farming business, with one family member claiming he is being sidelined because he is a Scientologist.
Thomas Abrey is suing his cousins Giles and Matthew and their fathers Richard and Robert after he was removed as a director of their family business, RG Abrey – a 6,500-acre farm in East Wretham, Thetford.
Thomas, who runs the firm’s onion division, is accusing his cousins and uncles of excluding him from the family business, undermining his authority and badmouthing him to employees because of his belief in the teachings of L Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer and founder of Scientology.
However, his relatives argue Thomas has created a “toxic working environment” and that his “overbearing style” and conduct borders on “bullying”.
Relations between the family have deteriorated badly since 2021 and the feud has now ended up in the High Court.
The RG Abrey business was founded by Russell Abrey almost a century ago, and the Thetford farm currently produces around 100,000 tonnes of potatoes, onions and carrots a year.
Russell passed down the farm to his three sons Christopher, Richard and Robert, who now run the business alongside their three sons Thomas, Giles and Matthew.
The company has a reported £80m in assets, turning over £25m in the last financial year.
The quarrel has now been brought before a judge at London’s High Court, with Thomas’ lawyers asking for a ruling barring his family from cutting him out of the business.
“Thomas claims that he has been progressively excluded from the partnership business, culminating in his removal as a director of the company on 27 September 2024 for the stated purpose of preventing him from giving directions to employees,” Judge Nicola Rushton said.
“He claims that his authority has been undermined by Robert and Giles, by criticism of him in front of employees, and that information about the business has been withheld from him.
“He also claims that his belief in Scientology has motivated the negativity of the other partners against him.”
The dispute has pitted two generations of the family against each other, with Thomas’ father, Christopher, backing his son, and Giles and Matthew’s fathers supporting them.
Thomas is suing both his two uncles and two cousins.
Judge Rushton said the uncles, Christopher, Richard and Robert, have stepped back from much of the day-to-day management of the farm, despite still being involved in significant management decisions.
“Thomas and Giles are involved in day-to-day management,” Judge Rushton said. “Matthew is said to be on long term sick leave, although there are also suggestions that he has withdrawn from working on the farm because of the dispute with Thomas. Giles says that Robert has covered some of Matthew's work.
“On behalf of the defendants, Giles says in his statement that Thomas is extremely difficult to work with and has been the subject of a large number of complaints from employees about his behaviour, which is said to be overbearing and potentially bullying.
“Giles says that Thomas' behaviour is causing serious day-to-day issues in running the business and is causing a toxic working environment.”
The judge said Thomas’ partners had formally sought dissolution of the long-established partnership “based on allegations that Thomas had an abusive style with employees, poor personnel management and interfered excessively with employees’ work”.
Thomas disputes all these misconduct claims, relying on statements from other employees who worked in the onion division and say it is Robert who is “angry, difficult and causes problems and that they have not had difficulties with Thomas”.
“Thomas says that one ex-employee claimed that Robert Abrey had 'referenced Thomas' Scientology as a cause of problems and a reason not to trust him," the judge added.
After protracted legal argument during a pre-trial hearing, the judge ruled in favour of Thomas, making a temporary injunction preventing rival partners "from impeding the claimant's participation in the business of the partnership".
However, she also directed that Thomas cannot contact "certain specified people who have asked not to be contacted by him" and observed that she was making no findings about the factual disputes between the partners, which must be decided at a future court hearing.
The issue of partnership dissolution is the subject of separate arbitration, the court heard.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel