Partnership dissolution is often misunderstood, not only as to what it entails, but also as to what the outcomes may be. When partners seek to “weaponise” the dissolution of a partnership, as a means of taking a business forward, while leaving one of the partners behind/excluding him from further participation, further important considerations arise.
The case of Campbell v Campbell [2017] serves as a prime example of the need for business partners trading through any type of business vehicle to record the precise terms of their business relationship with one another at the outset. It is also a good illustration of a WATNA (worst alternative to a negotiated agreement)….
It has become increasingly common for professional practices to find themselves in the position of having to recover substantial debts owed to the business by their partners or members. Scenarios that sometimes arise are:
On an appeal in the case of Dhillon v Sandhu (2014 WL 5411909) His Honour Judge Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) has affirmed the application of sanctions imposed by an unless order made by Chief Master Marsh in the course of the taking of a partnership account. The judgment gives guidance as…
“… The trial judge was entitled to order separate accounts for diversion of profits and for dissolution …” The Court of Appeal yesterday confirmed an award of an interim payment against a partner prior to the taking of a dissolution account. In Mukerjee v Sen (unreported at first instance so far as I am aware)…
