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 that the effect of repudiation was not in issue, but Lord Millett had questioned (obiter) whether the doctrine of repudiation had a place in partnership law. It had been argued against this that this would make for uncertainty. The court found that uncertainty would occur in any event, and Lord Millett’s provisional view should prevail. Here, the behaviour of the partners would justify a dissolution under the section, but the court made a Syers order for the remaining partners to buy the claimant out.
Neuberger J
Times 27-Dec-2002
Partnership Act 1890 35
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Distinguished – Hitchman v Crouch Butler Savage Associates 1982
The court considered the principles applicable in construing a partnership agreement.
Harman J said: ‘The doctrine of repudiation and other contractual provisions applied to a partnership contract whether made by a deed or orally in the same . .
Cited – Syers v Syers HL 1876
The court has power to ascertain the value of a former partner’s interest without a sale if it can be done by valuation, and will do so where that interest is relatively small. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178603
