Hammonds LLP v Jones: CA 21 Dec 2009

Partners had left the solicitors firm during the year. They had taken drawings calculated on the basis of anticipated profits, which not being met, the partnership sought to recover. The outgoing partners objected to being bound by accounts drawn after they had left.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. On a true construction of the deed, he was bound by the accounts, even though it required two different interpretations of the word ‘partner’ in the same clause, and even though he might be excluded from the meeting voting on the accounts. The clause was intended to provide a procedure for settling accounts so that they would in fact be binding on all partners.

Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Lloyd and Lord Justice Sullivan
[2009] EWCA Civ 1400
Times, Bailii
England and Wales
Appeal fromHammonds (A Firm) v Danilunas and others ChD 13-Feb-2009
The claimant firm of solicitors sought repayment of sums which it said were excess drawing from the defendants, former partners. Drawings had been taken against anticipated profits, and the retiring partners left as profits declined. The defendants . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.392502