Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 120 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 1446 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Mann J

Representation Mark Blackett-Ord (instructed by Burges Salmon LLP) for the claimant.
  Ulick Staunton (instructed by TWM) for the first and second defendants.
  Elspeth Talbot-Rice QC (instructed by Charles Russell) for the third and fourth defendants.
Judgment Dates: 16 June 2010

Catchwords

Partnership - Partnership property - Share of partnership property - Method of valuation - Four partners carrying on farming business - On death or retirement of partners partnership share passing to surviving partners and share of profit payable to retiring partner or estate of deceased - Accounts of partnership using historic value of land rather than current value - One of partners dying - Two other partners retiring - Share of profit payable by surviving partner - Whether historic value or market value of land should be used to calculate payments.

The Case

Partnership Partnership property. The Chancery Division held that, in the absence of clear provisions to the contrary in the partnership deed, where payments of a share of a profits in the partnership were due to a partner leaving the partnership, the current value of the assets, rather than a historic value, would be used to calculate the share of the profit payable to the outgoing partner.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.