Manning v English
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 153 (Ch) |
| Date | 2010 |
| Year | 2010 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Partnership - Dissolution - Undistributed assets - Claims for partnership account and share of run-off professional indemnity insurance premiums - Whether possible for account to be taken - Whether claims time-barred -
The claimant, Bernard Roy Manning, and the defendant, Stephen English, were in partnership as architects until the termination and dissolution of the partnership, the affairs of which remained to be wound up. Mr Manning sought an order that a partnership account be taken. He also claimed the immediate payment of £7,694·40, which amounted to 50% of the costs of premiums paid by him for run-off professional indemnity insurance cover for claims made in 2004/05 and 2005/06. Mr English maintained, inter alia, that the claims were time-barred under the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980.
Judge Kirkham having concluded, at para 35, that it was still possible for a partnership account to be taken, set out the relevant provisions of the 1980 Act, at para 36. She considered, at para 37, that the starting point was the six-year time limit for contractual claims. The judge took the approach, at para 40, that an account would not normally be ordered regarding the dealings and transactions of a partnership that had been dissolved for over six years prior to the issue of proceedings. She concluded, at paras 41–42, that the claims should fail because the claim for an account did not fall within section 29(5) of the 1980 Act. The claim was time-barred because there was no provision under the 1980 Act for time to run afresh when sufficient acknowledgement had been made.
Having considered whether the actions of Mr English could constitute acknowledgement, the judge considered, at paras 47–50, that Mr English had not provided an implicit promise to pay a debt or liquidated pecuniary claim. In any event, Mr Manning was unable to satisfy the judge that he came within the scope of section 30 of the 1980 Act, and accordingly, Mr English had a limitation defence to the claim for a partnership account to be taken.
Jonanthan Gavaghan (instructed by
Mark Blackett-Ord (instructed by
JUDGE KIRKHAM said, at paras 33–50 of her judgment:
Conclusions Is it still possible to take an account?33 Mr Manning accepts that there has been delay in completing accounts, and that this is due in part to delays in collecting in debts. However, his evidence is that he kept the partnership papers and that these are still available. He believes that Whittingham Riddell (“WR”) will have retained the papers given to them in late 2002 to prepare draft accounts. The Eaton Manning Wilson and Associates (“EMW”) in-house accountant had already answered some of WR’s queries. None of that evidence was challenged, and I have no reason to doubt Mr Manning’s assertions. Mr Manning believes that WR’s outstanding queries can be answered. Indeed, in his witness statement he sets out his response to the queries which WR had raised.
34 In his rejoinder, Mr English asserts that it is no longer possible to obtain the documentation needed to draw an account. Mr English had not previously raised that point. He had not, until very late in the day, given any evidence to support that assertion. He had not identified the documents he says it is no longer possible to locate. Mr English has not made out his case on this issue.
35 In my judgment it is likely that sufficient records and information would be available to WR to enable them now to finalise accounts and it is likely still to be possible to take an account.
Does Mr English have a limitation...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...have been referred to authorities on how the Court should approach the exercise of this discretionary power ( Guccio Gucci SpA v Dune [2010] EWHC 153 (Ch), (Norris J), cited with approval in 32Red Plc v WHG [2011] EWHC 665 (Ch) [31–32], [35] (Henderson J), and to illustrative examples of t......
-
Liquidation: Partnerships
...[2004] EWCA Civ 170, [2004] 1 BCLC 575 at [14]–[15] per Chadwick LJ. 29 See the CPR, in particular PD 40A. 30 Manning v English [2010] EWHC 153 (Ch), [2010] Bus LR D89 at [40] per Kirkham J, citing the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Marshall v Bullock (unreported), 27 March 1998. 270 La......
-
Table of Cases
...and Milford Rly Co, ex parte Cambrian Railway Company (1880) 14 ChD 645 249 Mann v Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091 447 Manning v English [2010] EWHC 153 (Ch), [2010] Bus LR D89 269 March Estates plc v Gunmark Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 1 53, 70 Marconi Corp plc v Marconi plc [2003] EWHC 663 (Ch) 27, 31 ......