NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Old v Hodgkinson; Old v McInnes [2009] NSWSC 1160
HEARING DATE(S) : 14/08/08; 23/02/09; 24/02/09; 26/02/09 and on the papers
JUDGMENT DATE : 3 November 2009
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Young JA
DECISION : Rulings as to how accounts should treat goodwill and costs of winding up.
CATCHWORDS : PARTNERSHIP [8]- Agreement in principle for partnership with additional partner- agreement never materialized- whether additional partner entitled to remuneration. PARTNERSHIP [37]- Winding up- series of partnerships- how goodwill to be treated- how costs of referee to settle accounts to be paid. - RESTITUTION [22]- Quantum meruit- where no contract but understanding between parties that a party will be reasonably remunerated for providing benefit to the other party- where partner in partnership at will received share of profits on basis that other partners thought he would pay for the goodwill of the former partnership under an anticipated contract- whether use of goodwill to produce income is benefit.
LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 Partnership Act 1892, s 40
Anaconda Nickel Ltd v Tarmoola Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 101 Aon Risk Services Australia Pty Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 82 ALJR 951 Atwood v Maude (1868) LR 3 Ch App 369 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 133 Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson [1946] HCA 25; 72 CLR 435 Brenner v First Artists' Management Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 221 Burns Philp Investments Pty Ltd v Dickens (No 2) (1993) 31 NSWLR 280 Clifton v Palumbo [1944] 2 All ER 497 Computer Machinery Co Ltd v Drescher [1983] 1 WLR 1379 First Church of Christ, Scientist, Brisbane v Ormlie Trading Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 351 Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited [2009] NSWCA 186 Hamer v Giles (1879) 11 Ch D 942 Independent Grocers Co-Operative Ltd v Noble Lowndes Superannuation Consultants Ltd (1993) 60 SASR 525 Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 11,110 CASES CITED : Meekin Enterprises v Gersbach (NSWSC, MH McLelland CJ in Eq, 6 August 1997, unreported) Moray v Lane (NSWSC, Allen J, 26 February 1993, unreported) Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; 160 CLR 583 Najjar v Haines (1991) 25 NSWLR 224 Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5; 162 CLR 221 Pit v Cholmondeley (1754) 2 Ves Sen 565; 28 ER 360 Re Reiter Brothers Exploratory Drilling Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 430 Schreiber v Dinkel (1886) 54 LT 911 Sinclair v Rankin (No 2) (1908) 10 WAR 126 Symphony Group plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179 Thompson v White (2006) 13 BPR 24,537 Tito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney-General [1977] Ch 106 Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd v Ken Morgan Motors Pty Ltd [1994] 2 VR 106 Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd v Conlan (1998) 16 ACLC 1653 Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] 1 WLR 1752
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate