HOWELL v FINE REAL ESTATE NETWORK PTY LTD [1998] NSWCA 109

HOWELL v FINE REAL ESTATE NETWORK PTY LTD [1998] NSWCA 109

Except for one adjustment, there were no grounds for appellate interference with the trial judge's acceptance and adoption of most of the referee’s findings and methodology regarding partnership property and liabilities, save for insufficient evidence supporting treating interest paid on a non-partnership loan as a partnership expense, requiring adjustment to the amount owed.

Parties
Appellant/defendant/cross Claimant: Paul Roch Howell; First Respondent/cross Appellant/plaintiff/cross Defendant: Fine Real Estate Network Pty Ltd; Second Respondent/cross Defendant: Mervyn Keith Fine; Third Respondent/cross Defendant: Patricia Joan Fine
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; orders varied; costs awarded accordingly.
Legal Topics
Partnership Dispute, Accounting Between Partners, Adoption of Referee’s Report, Characterisation of Expenses
Commercial Law Partnership Dispute Accounting Between Partners Adoption of Referee’s Report Characterisation of Expenses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Roch Howell

Appellant/defendant/cross Claimant

Fine Real Estate Network Pty Ltd

First Respondent/cross Appellant/plaintiff/cross Defendant

Mervyn Keith Fine

Second Respondent/cross Defendant

Patricia Joan Fine

Third Respondent/cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceeds from property sales were partnership property
  2. 2 Whether particular expenses (interest, commission, stamp duty, legal fees) were partnership expenses
  3. 3 Adoption of referee’s report and trial judge’s variations

Ratio Decidendi

Except for one adjustment, there were no grounds for appellate interference with the trial judge's acceptance and adoption of most of the referee’s findings and methodology regarding partnership property and liabilities, save for insufficient evidence supporting treating interest paid on a non-partnership loan as a partnership expense, requiring adjustment to the amount owed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; orders varied; costs awarded accordingly.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal allowed in part, generally dismissed with costs.