Hurst v Bryk and others: HL 30 Mar 2000

Where other partners committed a fundamental breach of their duties as partners, that did not release the innocent partner from existing obligations of the partnership, nor from the debts of the partnership on dissolution or even accruing after dissolution. His acceptance of the repudiatory breach by his partners could not alter his duties to others. The doctrines of repudiation could not award him either an indemnity from his former partners.
Lord Millett, Lords Browne-Wilkinson, Nicholls, Hope and Clyde
Gazette 28-Apr-2000, Times 04-Apr-2000, [2000] UKHL 19, [2000] 2 All ER 193, [2002] 1 AC 185
House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Partnership Act 1890
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal FromHurst v Bryk CA 4-Feb-1997
The end of a partnership did not break a former partner’s obligation to the other partners on a lease held for the partnership. . .

Cited by:
CitedMullins v Laughton and Others ChD 19-Dec-2002
The claimant asserted that his partners had repudiated the partnership by their conduct toward him. He continued that he had accepted the repudiation, and that therefore the partnership was dissolved.
Held: The Hurst case had been on the basis . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.159054