Old v Hodgkinson; Old v McInnes [2004] NSWSC 1202

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Old v Hodgkinson; Old v McInnes [2004] NSWSC 1202 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/10/04 and 3/12/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 December 2004 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq DECISION : Proceedings referred to a liquidator for report.

CATCHWORDS : PARTNERSHIP [37]- Dissolution- Whether actions at law between partners may be combined with partnership suit- What is preferable procedure for dealing with combined issues of accounting, fact and law. Alan Cadwallader v Bajco Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 439 Atwood v Maude (1868) LR 3 Ch App 369 Beckingham v The Port Jackson and Manly Steamship Company (1956) 57 SR (NSW) 403 Belfield v Bourne [1894] 1 Ch 521 CASES CITED : Bury v Allen (1845) 1 Coll 589; 63 ER 556 Hurst v Bryk [2002] 1 AC 185 Huston v Burns [1995] Tas SR 3 Lyon v Tweddell (1881) 17 Ch D 529 Re Bruges and Gow [1926] NZLR 893 1063/04 Fraser Patison Old (P) Hugh Rudyard Hodgkinson (D1) PARTIES : Kenneth John McInnes (D2) 4064/04 Fraser Patison Old (P) Kenneth John McInnes (D1) Hugh Rudyard Hodgkinson (D2) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1063/04; 4064/04 COUNSEL : R D Marshall and A Crossland (P) M Condon (D) SOLICITORS : Horowitz & Bilinsky (P) Philip Densham White (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Friday 3 December 2004

1063/04 – OLD v HODGKINSON 4064/04 – OLD v McINNES JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Today we have spent two hours debating procedural matters that arise out of a partnership suit between three gentlemen who were formerly partners in a practice of patent attorneys. The issues between the parties have fluctuated somewhat and there have been piles of papers exchanged between them, but the issue before me today is whether to refer to a chartered accountant/liquidator all the issues that arise between the parties or just the accounting issues. 2 I have been assisted in determining these issues by the submissions of Mr Marshall of counsel for the plaintiff and Mr Condon of counsel for the defendants. Although Mr Condon says that there has been no consent to any reference out in the correspondence, the way the case has been presented to me is that there is no fundamental objection to the accounting issues being sent out for reference, but not the legal issues. 3 The issues that remain can to my mind be distilled into four categories: