A farmer from an £80 million Norfolk onion and potato dynasty has claimed he is being cut out of the business because he is a Scientologist, a court has heard.
RG Abrey farm, near East Wretham, Thetford, produces about 100,000 tonnes of potatoes, onions and carrots a year, with a reported £80 million in assets and turnover of £25 million.
Russell Abrey founded the business almost a century ago, passing it down to his three sons – Christopher, Richard and Robert – who now lead it alongside their own sons, Thomas, Giles and Matthew Abrey.
The family is embroiled in a High Court battle, with Thomas and his father Christopher facing off against the other four men. Thomas has accused family members of removing him as a director of the 6,500-acre farm because of his belief in the teachings of L Ron Hubbard.
His uncles and cousins claim that Thomas, who runs the company’s onion division, has an “overbearing style” around the farm and has created a “toxic working environment”.
Giles, one of the cousins involved in the dispute, is an aviator who flew solo from the UK to South Africa in 2019 using a home-made plane.
Thomas denies throwing his weight around, insisting that his partners have unfairly undermined his authority in part because they disagree with his Scientologist convictions.
He is now suing his two uncles and two cousins on grounds that he has been “wrongfully excluded” from the family partnership, whilst they say he has become too difficult to work with and that his conduct borders on “bullying”.
Last Friday, a High Court judge granted an interim injunction to prevent Thomas’s uncles and cousins from excluding him from the enterprise until a full trial or alternative resolution is reached.
Mrs Justice Rushton explained that all involved agreed that relations between the six partners had broken down after “deteriorating badly” since at least 2021.
She said: “Thomas claims that he has been progressively excluded from the partnership business, culminating in his removal as a director of the company for the stated purpose of preventing him from giving directions to employees.
“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.”
Mrs Justice Rushton said the defendants insisted Thomas was awkward to work with and that they wanted the partnership, which dates back to the 1930s, simply “dissolved”.
The judge said: “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.”
The judge said that four of the 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 misconduct claims, the judge said, maintaining that they have never been “properly and independently investigated” and claims that “complaints against him have been instigated by the other partners as a means of trying to remove him”.
He alleged that a former employee said his uncle, Robert Abrey, had “referenced Thomas’ Scientology as a cause of problems and a reason not to trust him”.
Last week 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 the onion farmer 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 judge said she was “persuaded” that, if an injunction was not made, there was a “clear risk” that Thomas would increasingly be excluded from the partnership business “in a way which breached his rights as a partner” and which would make the dispute harder to resolve.
