Partnership Dissolution in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Hurst v Bryk
    • House of Lords
    • 30 Mar 2000

    This is because, while partnership is a consensual arrangement based on agreement, it is more than a simple contract (to use the expression of Dixon J. in McDonald v. Dennys Lascelles Ltd); it is a continuing personal as well as commercial relationship.

    By entering into the relationship of partnership, the parties submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court of equity and the general principles developed by that court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction in respect of partnerships.

  • Don King Productions Inc. v Warren
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 Dec 1998

    The reason is quite simply that partnership property within s.20 Partnership Act 1890 includes that to which a partner is entitled and which all the partners expressly or by implication agree should, as between themselves, be treated as partnership property. It is immaterial, as between the partners, whether it can be assigned by the partner in whose name it stands to the partners jointly.

  • Inland Revenue v Graham's Trustees
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Dec 1970

    But their rights under section 38 are limited by the provision that they may only do so so far as it may be necessary to wind up the affairs of the partnership and, this is the important passage, to complete transactions begun but unfinished at the time of the dissolution, and this is equally true of course of contracts in English law but, as I have said, it is less likely to be necessary to invoke that section.

  • Sandhu v Gill
    • Court of Appeal
    • 02 Nov 2005

    In the current (eighteenth) edition of Lindley & Banks on Partnership, the topic of "partnership shares" is dealt with in Chapter 19. Lord Lindley's "classic definition" is quoted in paragraph 19–05. He said that "the share of a partner is his proportion of the partnership assets after they have been all realised and converted into money, and all the debts and liabilities have been paid and discharged."

  • Golstein v Bishop
    • Court of Appeal
    • 05 Feb 2014

    Suppose that, by March in a particular year, partner B had so conducted himself as to render it impracticable for partner A to continue in partnership with him. But that is an altogether more flexible test than the necessarily rigorous analysis which may be applied to an allegation of affirmation, which operates by reference to concepts of election, and requires no detriment to be shown at all.

  • Joseph Golstein v Colin Bishop
    • Chancery Division
    • 02 May 2013

    If an employer is squeezing out an employee, or a partner is conducting himself in such a way as to make it impracticable to carry on in business with him, this may well be enough even if it is not easy to point to a specific act.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results