Judge finds co‑founder’s conduct unfairly prejudicial in dispute over National Parking Enforcement

A High Court judge has granted a petition brought by Jonathan Lecaille against his former wife and business partner, Julie Lecaille, finding her conduct during a post‑divorce management dispute unfairly prejudicial to his interests in National Parking Enforcement Ltd.

Jonathan and Julie Lecaille founded the parking management company in 2012. The firm operates on private land at shopping centres, hotels, pubs, restaurants, hospitals and industrial estates and has been widely criticised for issuing charges for very short stops. The couple separated in 2016 and divorced in 2018, after which their personal breakdown erupted into a legal contest over the control and value of the business.

The dispute was heard at the Insolvency and Companies Court in London. Jonathan Lecaille, 59, who has been managing director, accused his ex‑wife, who was responsible for compliance, debt recovery, litigation and data protection, of cancelling 9,000 parking charge notices, which he said cost the company about £270,000, and of failing to pursue 32,000 tickets pending legal action, which he estimated cost a further £400,000.

Julie Lecaille, 54, denied those allegations and counterclaimed that her former husband had excluded her from company business, denied her access to emails and documents, and acted in a bullying and degrading manner that forced her to resign as a director and seek to sell her shares. Her counterclaim also alleged unauthorised withdrawals from company funds, including the leasing of a £50,000 vehicle.

Judge Burton, in granting Jonathan Lecaille’s petition, said Ms Lecaille’s "extreme personal behaviour" had caused a breakdown in the trust and confidence necessary for the company's proper management. The judge recorded that Ms Lecaille had admitted sending work emails in which she labelled her former husband "sick", "evil" and "mentally disabled" and had accepted she would call him a "little bitch" to his face. The judge said her conduct, including an episode in April 2019 in which she allegedly entered the office "screaming and shouting" and distributed material accusing him of being a narcissist, had rendered constructive continuation of the business relationship unrealistic.

The court heard that Ms Lecaille had withdrawn £35,000 from the company bank account on one occasion; the sum was repaid the following day. Judge Burton said that, on balance, Ms Lecaille’s behaviour unfairly prejudiced Mr Lecaille’s interests in the business and justified the remedy sought by him.

The proceedings also revealed the couple had made no formal provision for their equal interests in the company after their divorce, leaving the firm to operate as what the judge described as a "quasi‑partnership" governed by the statutory framework and the parties’ mutual understandings. Tensions over management roles escalated from 2019 and flared into the public court dispute two years later.

Mr Lecaille told the court that Ms Lecaille had refused a third‑party offer to buy the company, which he said was intended to harm his financial position. Ms Lecaille’s claim that she was excluded from management responsibility was not upheld by the judge, who noted invitations from Mr Lecaille for her to resume involvement in debt recovery and litigation after earlier outbursts.

National Parking Enforcement has attracted media and public attention for issuing charges in circumstances that many motorists and consumer groups have described as harsh. Examples cited in court papers and media reports include an 81‑year‑old pensioner hit with a £170 charge after stopping for barely more than a minute in a car park to ask a passer‑by to post a letter, a £60 fine for a 16‑second drop‑off of an NHS worker near the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, and a £100 charge after a motorist stopped for 26 seconds to sneeze.

Both parties sought an order under the Companies Act for the court to set a valuation at which Mr Lecaille would buy Ms Lecaille’s shares. The judge granted the petition but the buy‑out value of the company’s shares has yet to be determined. The judgment concluded that Ms Lecaille’s conduct had destroyed the mutual trust required to run the company together and authorised the court’s intervention to resolve the ownership dispute.