Termination of the Business

AuthorElspeth Berry
Pages145-155

Chapter 11


Termination of the Business

11.1 GENERAL PARTNERSHIPS
11.1.1 Dissolution

Dissolution marks the legal end of a partnership. If the business is genuinely to come to an end or to be sold to a third party (sometimes referred to as a total dissolution), the assets will be collected, the debts paid and any surplus distributed to the partners. Alternatively, it may be that one or more of the partners are to continue the business (sometimes referred to as a partial or technical dissolution). In this case the continuing partner(s) will buy out those who are leaving, and carry on the same business as a sole trader or partnership.

A partnership may be dissolved in a number of ways.

11.1.2 Non-judicial grounds for dissolution

Subject to contrary agreement, a partnership is dissolved without the involvement of the court in the following situations (ss 32–34 of the Partnership Act).

Partnership ‘at will’

If no contrary agreement as to duration has been reached, the partnership is ‘at will’ (s 26(1) of the Partnership Act). This means that it continues indefinitely, and any partner may dissolve the partnership by giving notice to all other partners (ss 26(1) and 32; see also 9.1.5). It is advisable for the notice to be in writing so as to reduce the possibility of future disputes as to whether it was properly given. Although it is possible to include in the partnership

146 Partnership and LLP Law
agreement a provision specifying a notice period, so that the dissolution cannot occur without prior warning, a partnership which has a comprehensive agreement is more likely to provide that notice of departure does not trigger dissolution.

Fixed term or purpose


If the partnership is formed for a fixed period of time or purpose, it will dissolve automatically at the end of the specified period or purpose unless the partnership is, in fact, continued (s 32 of the Partnership Act). In the latter case, the partnership will be governed by the old terms, unless new terms are agreed (s 27), and if no new agreement as to duration is reached, it will be a partnership at will (see above). In Chahal v Mahal and Deol1(see also 2.1.1), the court held that the partnership was for the duration of an undertaking, namely the operation of a particular caravan site, and that it was dissolved by implied agreement when that site was sold.

Other events


The death or bankruptcy of a partner will automatically dissolve the partnership in the absence of contrary agreement (s 33(1) of the Partnership Act).

A partnership may be dissolved, at the option of the other partners, if a partner’s share is charged to pay a private debt (s 33(2) of the Partnership Act).

Illegality, whether of the business or the partnership, will result in dissolution (s 34 of the Partnership Act). This may not be varied by agreement. It may be that the business is unlawful, or that it was formed illegally. In Everet v Williams,2a claim by one highwayman against another for his share of profits was dismissed because the business was illegal. In Hudgell, Yeates & Co v Watson,3one partner in a firm of solicitors failed to renew his practising certificate and therefore could not legally practise as a solicitor. It was held that the partnership dissolved at the date on which the certificate lapsed. Since the other partners continued to practise, a new partnership was constituted by conduct (and excluded the former partner who could not legally practise).

1Chahal v Mahal and Deol [2004] EWHC 2859 (Ch), [2004] All ER (D) 190 (Sep).

2Everet v Williams (1725) noted in (1893) 9 LQ Rev 197.

3Hudgell, Yeates & Co v Watson [1978] 2 All ER 363.

Similarly, in Stevens and another v Bower,4one of two partners in a firm of solicitors was struck off the roll of solicitors. The EAT held that the result of s 34 was that the partnership was dissolved when he was struck off.

However, a partnership will not dissolve merely because the business could be carried on illegally. In Dungate v Lee,5a partner in a firm of bookmakers had not obtained the permit necessary to carry on bookmaking. However, the court held that the purpose of the partnership was not illegal and, as a permit was only required by those partners actually engaged in bookmaking, the partners were not necessarily breaking the law. The partnership had therefore not been automatically dissolved.

In Hurst v Bryk6(see also 7.1.6 and 9.1.4), Lord Millett, who gave the leading judgment, opined that acceptance of a repudiatory breach of the partnership agreement (which he held did not enable the accepting partner to avoid liabilities already incurred) should not automatically dissolve the partnership itself. In Mullins v Laughton,7where this issue arose for decision, the court adopted this approach, and Mullins was followed in Golstein v Bishop8(see also 9.1.4).

11.1.3 Judicial grounds for dissolution

Given the extensive grounds for dissolution without court involvement, judicial dissolution is rarely necessary. However, it may be required if one or more partners (but not all, since the partners acting unanimously could simply alter the agreement) wish to dissolve a partnership for a fixed purpose or term, or a partnership at will with an agreed notice period, before the purpose is achieved or the term or notice period has expired.

The grounds on which the court may dissolve a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT