Giddins v Bolger [2003] NSWSC 1015

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Giddins v Bolger [2003] NSWSC 1015 HEARING DATE(S) : 31 October 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 November 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity Division JUDGMENT OF : Smart AJ at 1 DECISION : See para 33.

CATCHWORDS : Partnership existed - dissolved. No question of principle. LEGISLATION CITED : Nil CASES CITED : Nil PARTIES : Gregory Allen Giddins v James William Bolger FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1845/02 COUNSEL : (P) Mr Darvall (D) In Person SOLICITORS : (P) Denniston and Day (D) In Person

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

Wednesday, 5 November 2003

SMART AJ 1845/02: Gregory Allen GIDDINS v James William BOLGER

JUDGMENT

1. By his statement of claim Mr Giddins alleged that in or about April 1999 it was agreed between him and Mr Bolger that they should commence a business in the acquisition of, and entry into racing events by, thoroughbred horses and that they should be partners in the business. It was alleged that the partnership was at will and that the terms included that they should share the profits and bear the losses in equal shares, that the assets of the business should belong to them in equal shares and that they should contribute to the business in equal shares. Mr Giddins alleged that pursuant to the agreement he had contributed $93,480 to the capital of the partnership.

2. Mr Giddins alleged that about 14 September 2001 he delivered to Mr Bolger a notice of dissolution dissolving the partnership forthwith.

3. By his statement of defence the defendant denied that he and the plaintiff entered into the partnership alleged or any partnership. The defendant alleged that he purchased shares in various horses with the plaintiff between April and October 1999. The defendant alleged that the individual racehorses raced in shared ownership between the plaintiff and the defendant and other persons including Karen Flack, Noel Coonan and Mark Killian at various dates between Aril1999 to date (14 June 2002). The defendant denied the terms of the agreement alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the owners or part owners of each thoroughbred racehorse were to share in the profits and the losses in respect to each thoroughbred racehorse as per their respective shares.