Hopton v Miller: ChD 31 Aug 2010

The parties had entered into partnership to open and run a restaurant, but without a formal agreement. They differed as to the values contributed by their respective efforts. After failures to disclose materials requested, the defendant we precluded from presenting evidence himself. He said that, the accounts having been drawn, Mrs Miller was precluded under section 42 from asserting an interest not shown in them. She asserted that the accounts understated the business.
Held: The court considered and construed the accounts and awarded an apportionment accordingly.
Behrens J
[2010] EWHC 2232 (Ch)
Partnership Act 1890 42
England and Wales
CitedBernard v Josephs CA 30-Mar-1982
The court considered the division of proceeds of sale of a house bought by an unmarried couple.
Held: Where the trusts for which a property was purchased have been concluded, the house should be sold.
Griffiths LJ said: ‘the fact that . .
CitedLloyds Bank plc v Rosset HL 29-Mar-1990
The house had been bought during the marriage but in the husband’s sole name. The plaintiff’s charge secured the husband’s overdraft. The bank issued possession proceedings. Mr Rosset had left, but Mrs Rosset claimed, as against the bank an interest . .
CitedMorris v Morris CA 22-Feb-2008
Absent an express post-acquisition agreement, a court will be slow to infer from conduct alone that parties intended to vary existing beneficial interests established at the time of acquisition. . .
CitedJames v Thomas CA 23-Nov-2007
The claimant sought an interest in the property registered in the sole name of the respondent. The respondent had inherited a share in the property, and then bought out the interests of his siblings with support of a loan. The claimant had made no . .
CitedStack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
CitedGill v Sandhu (No. 2) CA 2-Nov-2005
The court considered the valuation of asets on the dissolution of a partnership at will.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The proper share of a partner in the assets was his proportion ascertained from the partnership assets after they had all . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 April 2021; Ref: scu.423150