Partnership Dissolution in UK Law

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.

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.

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."

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.