• CIVIL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

Rowlands Vs. Hodson

Appeal filed by the appellant against an Order ruling the appellant to be a partner in a firm of solicitors and her being made liable for payment of various sums totalling just under £245,000 to the respondent. The Order was challenged by appellant on grounds that the appellant was not partner in the firm on the relevant dates and the arrangement under the deed as not a true partnership for the purposes of Partnership Act 1890.

The parties set out with the intention of being true partners, as the partnership deed provided. They so intended because supervision by an appropriately qualified partner was what the Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990 required. Despite the undoubtedly modest contribution to the partnership affairs that the appellant made, they acted as partners throughout its term. The only real change that happened in the firm's history was the dispensation in December 2001 of the need for the appellant to provide further supervision. That dispensation could not by itself have operated to dissolve the partnership. That could only have been achieved by an agreement to that effect by the two partners, but there was none. The partnership deed or agreement (if, as here, there is one) will usually provide bases on which a partnership relationship can be terminated; and clauses 7 and 9 of the partnership deed did provide such bases. None was invoked in this case and there was no evidence of any express or implied dissolution of the partnership. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

• COMMERCIAL

England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions

Soufflet Negoce Vs. Bunge SA

Claim filed for damages for failure to load the cargo. It was alleged that the vessel had given notice of readiness to load on the last day of the delivery period. There was a dispute as to whether the vessel's holds were in a condition of readiness to load the cargo. The Sellers contended that the holds were unclean and thus, it was contended, were not presented "in readiness to load" during the delivery period. The Buyers disputed this and called upon the Sellers to load after a certain date. The Sellers' refusal to do so was treated as repudiatory by the Buyers.

The Sellers placed considerable weight on the proposition that the Buyers would be able to benefit from an indefinite extension beyond the agreed delivery period by presenting an unfit vessel but thereafter taking steps to render the vessel fit. But the short answer is that the Buyers are not in a position to both call for the cargo and in the same breath require work to be carried out prior to commencement of loading. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.