"It Is Difficult To Overstate How Unusual The Facts Of This Case Are": Macfarlanes Obtains £12.6m Injunction For Dignity Funerals Over Trust Funds Paid To Pride Planning

Macfarlanes (representing Dignity Funerals Limited and Veronica Lake) has obtained proprietary injunctions over £12.6 million of assets against Pride Planning Limited, its parent company, Pride Planning Holdings DAC, and Inertia Financial Consultancy DAC, an entity holding funds on Pride Planning Holdings’ behalf.

The injunction is the first appearance in Court in Dignity’s claim against these companies, their shareholders, Adam Deering and Michael Noblett, and two trustees of the Pride Planning Trust. The claim relates to a settlement in October 2024, in which the trustees paid approximately £12.6m to Pride Planning. In November 2025, Dignity and Macfarlanes obtained an order requiring the Trustees to provide information about their management of the Trust and that settlement.

The Court found there was a good arguable case that the £12.6m payment was a breach of trust and granted an injunction. The funds paid must now be preserved while the claim comes to trial.

In his judgment, Deputy High Court Judge Richard Farnhill commented that “it is difficult to overstate how unusual the facts of this case are” and described the process by which the Trust’s assets were paid to Pride Planning as “remarkable”.

That process was:

• Prior to 2024, the Trust held the money paid by Pride Planning customers to pay for their funerals.
• In September 2024, Pride Planning removed two of the trustees of the Trust and replaced them with Redshank Business Services Limited, a company formed that year and controlled by the wife of the remaining trustee.
• Pride Planning then sent the Trustees a draft claim for more than the entire value of the Trust. It then recommended that the Trustees appoint new lawyers, Valemus Law.
• The claim had readily identifiable weaknesses, including that it listed the wrong number of funeral plans. However, within days of their appointment, Valemus Law advised that there was “no viable defence” to the threatened claim and that Pride Planning “would likely obtain an injunction” against the Trustees. The Judge described that advice as “wholly wrong”.
• The threatened claim was then settled in under a month for the full value of the assets held in the Trust, despite containing “obvious factual errors and weaknesses”.

The Court described the chronology leading to the settlement as “striking” and that “it is hard to conceive of how the position could have been more seriously mishandled” by the Trustees and Valemus Law. The Judge accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried that the Trustees had breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the settlement.

The Court granted a proprietary injunction against Pride Planning, Pride Planning Holdings DAC and Inertia on the basis that there is a good arguable case that those companies knew the Settlement funds had been transferred in breach of trust and that it would be unconscionable for those companies to retain the benefit of the funds paid in the Settlement. In doing so, the Judge found that there was a good arguable case that Mr Deering, as Pride Planning’s sole director, knew that:

• one of the Trustees was newly appointed, as was the solicitor advising on the claim;
• while the claim was premised on all customers giving notice of cancellation, a significant number of customers had done nothing;
• the Trustees had agreed to hand over all the Trust assets without even seeing a settlement agreement; and
• the Settlement would leave nothing in the Trust for the customers who did not transfer to Dignity (who otherwise were due to receive a refund).

The Judgment represents a significant victory for Dignity and Pride Planning’s former customers in their pursuit of the funds transferred in this remarkable case. More generally, the judgment serves as a good example of the Courts’ willingness to use the most serious orders available to protect assets held in trust, where the circumstances warrant it.

The proceedings continue.

In the application for an injunction:

Dignity Funerals Limited and Ms Veronica Lake were represented by Macfarlanes LLP.

Mr Adam Deering, Mr Michael Noblett, Pride Planning Limited, Pride Planning Holdings DAC and Inertia Financial Consultancy DAC were represented by HF Limited.

In the claim for cancellation fees brought by Pride Planning against the Trustees:

Pride Planning Limited were represented by Shoosmiths LLP.

The Trustees were represented by Valemus Law.

Macfarlanes is a pre-eminent law firm advising a global client base across Private Capital, Private Wealth, M&A and Disputes.

Visit our website to learn more about our services and how we can assist.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.