The question was whether accounts which had been produced by the continuing partners, but which had been prepared not by them but by an auditor, were ones which they themselves could refer to arbitration or which, having been produced by them, were binding on them.
Held: A court will be reluctant to find, as a matter of implication, that an outgoing partner has been deprived of his right to object to the contents of accounts prepared after he has left the partnership.
Lord Coulsfield
[1998] ScotCS 24, (1999) SC 97
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Hammonds (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: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.163340
