WEDD V. PARKER AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSrRALIA

oper"

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at__MELBOURNE

WM Houston, Gort, Prit., Melb,

— *

aie

WEDD ve

PARKER AND OTHERS

Appeal allowed with costs.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia varied as follows:

(1) by substituting for the second of the orders therein contained a declaration that the option to purchase the defendant's share in the capital and assets of the partnership business, which became exercisable under clause 20 of the partnership agreement of 2ist October 1953 at the time of the giving of the notice dissolving the partnership, has not been validly exercised; :

(2) by adding after the fourth order therein contained an order that liberty be reserved to all parties to apply in the Supreme Court from time to time for such orders as may be proper for the due winding-up of the partnership;

(3) by substituting for the fifth of the orders therein contained an order that the costs of the plaintiffs of the action up to and including the said judgment, taxed on the Higher Scale in Appendix N to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, with certificate for counsel and certificates for the second and third days, be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs, and that all further costs in the action be reserved to be dealt with in the Supreme Court.

Order that the costs of the action to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs under the judgment of the Supreme Court as so varied and the costs of the appeal to be paid by

the respondents to the appellant under this Order be set off.

JUDGMENT.

WEDD

Ve

PARKER AND OTHERS

DIXON C.J.

HITTO Je MENZIES J.

WEDD

Ve

PARKER AND OTHERS

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Wolff J.) in an action between the members of a partnership. The partnership carried on a business of dry cleaners in and around Perth. It was governed by an agreement dated the 21st October 1953 which provided that the partnership should continue for a period of three years certain from that date and thereafter until determined by six months' notice. There were six partners. During the three-year period, namely on 28th June 1956, five of the partners gave the sixth a notice purporting to determine the partnership forthwith under a provision in that behalf contained in the partnership agreement, and one of the five simultaneously gave the sixth a notice purporting to exercise an option under the partnership agreement to purchase the share of the sixth in the capital and assets of the partnership. The five then sued the sixth, seeking a judgment of dissolution of the partnership and ancillary relief. An injunction was claimed on the footing that a round worked by the defendant for picking up clothes for dry cleaning in certain areas south of the Swan River was part of the partnership business. On the other hand the defendant counterclaimed for declarations that the notices abovementioned were ineffectual. He also counterclaimed for dissolution of the partnership as for a wrongful repudiation of the partnership agreement by the plaintiffs, and for other relief.