£80m farming family in court over religious bias, power struggle

High Court battle divides £80m farming dynasty over allegations of religious bias and workplace strife

A legal dispute is destroying a renowned £80m farming dynasty as Thomas Abrey, a member of the Abrey family, claims he was ostracized by his uncles and cousins ​​because of his Scientology affiliation. The allegations have led to a bitter rift within the multi-generational family business, RG Abrey, as family members clash over control and management style of the 6,500-acre estate near East Wrexham, Thetford.

Thomas Abrey alleges that his cousins, Giles and Matthew, along with their fathers, Richard and Robert, systematically undermined his authority by belittling him on staff and excluding him from decision-making because of his adherence to Scientology principles. In response, family members claim that Thomas has fostered a “toxic work environment” and exhibited “over-the-top behaviour”, which has led to tensions since 2021. This internal conflict has now escalated to the High Court, where Thomas is challenging his recent removal as a director, claiming he was “wrongfully excluded” from the family partnership that lasted nearly a century.

Thomas Abrey – Instagram

The Abrey family farming enterprise, founded by Russell Abrey almost 100 years ago, produces around 100,000 tonnes of potatoes, onions and carrots each year. The property’s estimated assets total £80m, with a turnover of £25m reported in the last financial year. Originally bequeathed to Russell’s three sons – Christopher, Richard and Robert – the business is now run by the next generation, with Thomas overseeing the onion division.

Religious tensions and accusations of marginalization

Thomas, supported by his father Christopher, claims his Scientology beliefs fueled his family’s antagonism. He claims his authority was eroded by his uncles and cousins, who publicly criticized him in front of employees and withheld key business information. In court, Thomas’ legal team sought an injunction to prevent relatives from obstructing his involvement in the business, arguing that his exclusion was unfair and discriminatory.

During the hearing, Judge Nicola Rushton acknowledged the deterioration of family relationships. She summed up Thomas’ perspective, noting that he felt increasingly marginalized, with tensions culminating in his removal as director on 27 September 2024. Thomas’s lawyer argued that his family’s treatment was determined of bias against his religious beliefs, a strong support of his relatives. dispute.

Family allegations of a hostile work environment

Members of the Abrey family counter that Thomas’ management style has caused significant problems in the workplace. They claim his behavior verges on bullying, creating a “toxic work environment” that has led to numerous complaints from employees. The judge noted that while Thomas claims his authority was unfairly curtailed, the family claims he has become difficult to work with, citing employee dissatisfaction and strained relationships.

Giles, who has taken on additional responsibilities due to Matthew’s long-term sick leave, highlighted the challenges Thomas’ behavior poses for running the business. Judge Rushton’s remarks highlighted the family’s position: “The defendants allege that Thomas is extremely difficult to work with and that his domineering behavior has led to significant day-to-day challenges within the business.”

Legal orders and temporary injunction

At the preliminary hearing, Judge Rushton ruled in favor of a temporary injunction, allowing Thomas to maintain his involvement in the partnership’s business operations. However, the judge stipulated that Thomas must refrain from contacting certain people who have not requested any interaction with him. Judge Rushton clarified that she was not making factual determinations at this stage, with the main legal dispute to be resolved at a future hearing.

“I was persuaded by the evidence that without an injunction there was a significant risk that Thomas would be increasingly marginalized from the partnership’s operations,” Judge Rushton said. She pointed out that his exclusion could complicate efforts to reach a final settlement or speed up arbitration, further destabilizing his position.

Arbitration and wider family breakdown

The Abrey family conflict has escalated to the point where Thomas’ associates are calling for the partnership to be dissolved, citing his alleged misconduct and confrontational behavior as reasons for the breakdown. Thomas, however, denies all the allegations, saying the claims were designed to get him out of the family business. He relies on statements from employees in his division who claim that Robert, not Thomas, displays anger and creates a challenging work environment. Thomas’ legal team claims the “toxic environment” allegations were never independently investigated.

The judge also referred to statements from former employees who cited Thomas’ affiliation with Scientology as a source of contention within the family. A former employee reportedly claimed that Robert attributed the family’s problems to Thomas’s beliefs, expressing his disbelief.

Aeronautical feats and family heritage

Adding a unique aspect to the case, Giles Abrey, who opposes Thomas in the dispute, has attracted media attention for his aviation achievements. In 2019, Giles flew solo from the UK to South Africa, emulating pioneer aviator Alex Henshaw’s historic journey from London to Cape Town in 1939. His flight, a 7,750-mile journey that involved navigating at high altitudes and crossing oxygen depletion, raised over £40,000. for charity.

As the Abreys prepare for a legal battle to determine the future of their partnership, the High Court case is a complex intersection of family, business and religious tensions. With a hearing yet to be scheduled for the full trial, the Abreys must navigate the legal implications of their long-standing partnership, which dates back to the 1930s. The case will also address whether the partnership can survive allegations of bias , leadership conflicts and dissolution requests.