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.
Losses resulting from expulsion following whistleblowing can be very substantial, and there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded.
But in some cases the expulsion of the whistleblower may:
In such circumstances it may be argued by the continuing LLP members that the chain of causation between the whistleblowing and the whistleblower’s loss brought about by the expulsion of the whistleblower has been broken, and that accordingly no recoverable loss arises.
The Court of Appeal decision earlier this year in Wilsons Solicitors & others v Roberts brings such scenarios sharply back into focus.
(This article was first published on the Kluwer Mediation Blog on 7 March 2017)
…the typical all-powerful and largely irreplaceable partner of yore has evolved to become a powerless, placeholder partner, keeping the chair warm for the next incumbent of his post. He is the counterpoint to, and the prey of, the predator partner.
This has radically altered how many partnership disputes, especially in the professions, tend to arise and are resolved.
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)….
I previously reported on the case of Moore v Moore (2016), in which the court ordered, based on proprietary estoppel, that a farmer’s son was entitled to take over his father’s interest in the family farming partnership, despite the fact that the father wanted to leave his interest to another family member in his will….
In the case of Hosking v Marathon Asset Management LLP [2016] EWHC 2418 (Ch) the court had to answer the question, “Whether the share of profits of a partner of a partnership or a member of an LLP, paid out pursuant to and in accordance with a partnership or LLP deed, can be subject to…
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…
…an historic rock and roll theme… In the case of Achom v Lalic [2014] the claimants (for whom I acted) had reached an understanding with the defendants whereby the defendants would acquire night club premises in Mayfair and the parties would together develop those premises into an exclusive night club with an historic rock and…
“… 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)…
