This case concerns longstanding litigation between Linda Riley and her half brother, John Aidiniantz, arising from disputes over the ownership and control of Rollerteam Limited, the company operating the Sherlock Holmes Museum. Ms Riley alleges that Mr Aidiniantz had transferred his shares to his wife to prevent enforcement of substantial costs orders.
The court was asked to determine a series of interim applications arising from Ms Riley’s claim under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, brought against her half brother, Mr Aidiniantz, and his wife.
Ms Riley alleged that the transfers of Rollerteam Limited’s entire issued share capital to the second defendant in 2014 and 2016 were transactions at an undervalue designed to prevent enforcement of significant costs liabilities. She claims that she is owed £493,828.21, although the defendants accepted outstanding costs of at least £300,625.24.
Rollerteam, had been valued by Mr Aidiniantz at approximately £20 million, making the share transfers a central enforcement target.
The defendants sought strike out, summary judgment, a civil restraint order and security for costs. They argued, among other things, that the claim was time barred, that a 2013 Tomlin order barred further litigation concerning Rollerteam’s shareholding, that earlier proceedings gave rise to estoppel, and that Ms Riley was abusing the court’s process under Henderson v Henderson principles. They further contended that the share transfers were genuine gifts associated with marriage and estate planning rather than any attempt to avoid enforcement.
The court rejected the limitation arguments, holding that a section 423 claim is an action on a specialty with a twelve year limitation period. It also held that the Tomlin order did not clearly exclude future claims of this nature, and that neither issue estoppel nor abuse of process applied.
The court considered that the substantial value of the Rollerteam shares, the timing of the transfers, the exhaustion of the £2.2 million security previously paid into court, and the defendants’ subsequent relocation to Germany gave rise to triable issues regarding intention. It therefore declined to dispose of the case summarily and dismissed the applications for strike out, summary judgment and security for costs.
The substantive proceedings remain ongoing and will proceed to trial.
Riley v Aidiniantz and von Ehrenstein [2025] EWHC 3222 (Ch)
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.