Bitter courtroom battle over Sherlock Holmes museum takes new twist – as sister accuses founding father of giving £20million enterprise to his spouse to keep away from paying her

The founder of the Sherlock Holmes museum has been accused of giving the £20million business to his wife to dodge paying £500,000 to his sister.

John Aidiniantz has been locked in a court battle with his family, including his sister Linda Riley, for more than 13 years in a row sparked over ownership of the ‘goldmine’ tourist attraction.

The family have appeared in court more than 100 times over the London-based museum and has racked up more than a dozen judgments in a series of bitter disputes.

This includes an argument over their late mother’s former £1million home in Battersea and a senior manager earning six figures suing for being fired from the museum when she demanded a £500,000 bonus.

Now, in a latest twist, Mr Aidiniantz has been accused of giving away the business, which he says is worth £20m, to his wife to deliberately stop his sister’s bid to get him to pay a debt of almost £500,000 she says he owes her. 

He disputes that he owes his sister so much and denies that the transfer of company shares to his wife, Andrea von Ehrenstein, was motivated by a desire to halt the court claims against him.

The Sherlock Holmes Museum was set up in Baker Street, close to Marylebone Station, in 1989, with Mr Aidiniantz, 69, claiming it as his brainchild. 

Attracting tourists from across the globe, it boasts it is the ‘official home’ of the fictional detective, with it located at 221b Baker Street – the actual address Sherlock Holmes lived at.

It proved highly successful, with the court being told by lawyers during one hearing in 2022 that it is ‘a goldmine,’ taking a fortune in ticket sales.

However, John and the rest of his family were torn apart in 2012 due to legal disputes over the £1.8m worth of takings from the museum, ownership and occupancy of various properties and the care of their elderly mother.

The fight has previously been described by judges who have dealt with it as ‘poisonous,’ ‘lamentable’ and ‘sad’, with ‘bitterness and contempt’ between the siblings and various members of the family. 

An initial row over the museum’s ownership was settled in 2013, with Mr Aidiniantz accepted to be the sole owner of the museum shares, with his sisters Ms Riley and Jenny Decoteau receiving £1m each.

In his judgment last week, Master Bowles said both Mr Aidiniantz and Ms Riley have had ‘successes and failures’ during the prolonged litigation.    

Mr Aidiniantz and his company Rollerteam Ltd tried to have the latest claim thrown out before getting to trial, arguing it had been brought too late after the transfer of the museum to his wife.

He insisted he had been acting legitimately when transferring all his shares to his wife in 2014. Half were then transferred back to Mr Aidiniantz before again being handed to her in 2016.

The transfers were because he had just got married, he claimed, and was planning to retire and wanted the business left in safe hands.

Master Bowles said: ‘As advanced by Ms Riley, is that Mr Aidiniantz owes Ms Riley £493,828.21 in costs, together with interest on that amount and that monies, in their entirety, have been owed since January 2023 and remain entirely unpaid.

‘While that figure is not agreed, or acknowledged by Mr Aidiniantz, it appears to be accepted that, at the least, there are unpaid costs totalling £300,625.24.’

He said the case was brought back to court after Ms Riley sued her brother again, claiming that his decision to transfer the museum to his wife was an attempt to dodge paying his bills.

‘It is Ms Riley’s claim that the transfer and subsequent re-transfer of the Rollerteam shares to Ms von Ehrenstein were transactions at an undervalue and were undertaken by Mr Aidiniantz for the purpose of putting his shares in Rollerteam out of the reach of Ms Riley,’ said the judge.

The judge continued: ‘The purpose of the gift was, as he put it, “for posterity”, to allow the Sherlock Holmes Museum to continue after his death and, at age 58, to allow him to retire, knowing that the museum would be in the safe hands of his wife and his step-daughter, Laura.’

But for Ms Riley, barrister Mark James insisted that she has a good case to argue that the shares were not transferred for that reason but to stop claims against him.

He also argued the shares were transferred, but only on paper with Mr Aidiniantz remaining the beneficial owner of them.

The judge said: ‘Mr James’ overall submission is that, given that it is Mr Aidiniantz’s own proud assertion that it was he who, via Rollerteam, developed the Sherlock Holmes museum into a hugely successful business, it is highly unlikely that he should have given it all away, even to his wife, and left himself to live entirely on her benevolence.

‘It is much more likely that, in reality and despite the share transfers, he continues to control Rollerteam as the beneficial owner of its shares.’

The court was also told that Mr James argued that Mr Aidiniantz and Ms von Ahrenstein’s move to Germany in 2017 was to ‘place serious difficulties in respect of the enforcement of any judgment.’

The judge added: ‘Additionally, Mr James points to the fact that, in March 2017…Mr Aidiniantz and Ms von Ahrenstein moved out of the jurisdiction, to Germany, where they now permanently reside, and did so notwithstanding that they had only recently renewed their tenancy of a four bedroomed family home in Highgate. 

‘He submits that the move to Germany was part of a broad pattern of behaviour, of which the share transfers were a part, whereby Mr Aidiniantz sought to make himself ‘judgment proof’, or, at the least to place serious difficulties in respect of the enforcement of any judgment.’

However, Mr Aidiniantz pointed to the fact that he had made payments of sums he owed since moving to Germany as evidence that the move and the share transfers were nothing to do with making himself ‘judgment proof.’

Rejecting Mr Aidiniantz’s bid to throw out his sister’s claims about the shares, the judge said: ‘While I do not regard Ms Riley’s claims as being of the strongest, I do not regard them as unrealistic, or fanciful, such as to entitle Mr Aidiniantz to summary judgment.

‘Although, at trial, the burden will be upon Ms Riley to make out her case, at this stage the burden is upon Mr Aidiniantz to persuade the court that those claims have no realistic, or serious, prospect of success. Mr Aidiniantz has not met that burden.’

He said it would be for a judge at a full trial to decide what Mr Aidiniantz’s true intention was in transferring the company to his wife.

He concluded: ‘I am not seeking in any way to second guess the potential result of the necessary investigation of Mr Aidiniantz’s intentions in respect of the transfers and the beneficial ownership of the Rollerteam shares, which will take place at trial.’

The case will return to court for a full trial at a later date.

Over the past decade, the family have been in court dozens of times following the fallout.

In 2022, Mr Aidiniantz took Mrs Riley and his younger brother Stephen Riley, to court once again, over their late mother’s former £1million home in Battersea, south London.

Mr Aidiniantz argued Mr Riley has no right to continue to live in the home, which should be handed to Mr Aidiniantz’s company with ‘vacant possession’.

And in 2023, the museum became embroiled in another court battle after the a senior manager earning six figures sued for being fired when she demanded a £500,000 bonus.

Honoria Cartlidge, who was on a £120,000 salary, was fired from the after she became embroiled in a bitter money row with its female director, Laura Von Ehrenstien, Andrea’s daughter, when their long-term relationship broke down.

Ms Cartlidge’s six year relationship with director had already broken down over money disputes – with the businesswoman claiming she was too ‘money-orientated’.

The break-up was so bitter Ms Von Ehrenstien went to her ex-partner’s flat and stole back the dog her family had given her five years before, an employment tribunal heard. 

Ms Cartlidge has successfully sued the Sherlock Holmes Museum for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal. She also won claims of unlawful deduction of holiday pay. 

However, employment Judge Mark Emery said she wasn’t entitled to the bonus and lost her claim of unlawful deduction of wages through unpaid bonus.