BROOKER v FRIEND & BROOKER PTY LTD & ANOR (No 3) [2008] NSWCA 118

BROOKER v FRIEND & BROOKER PTY LTD & ANOR (No 3) [2008] NSWCA 118

The right to contribution by the appellant arose with respect to the burden of the SMK borrowing as it stood in 1995, and the second respondent is required to contribute equally to the obligations under the loan from that time, with the proper accounting for repayments, and interest to be determined in accordance with the reasons of the majority. Application to reopen issues already decided was rejected.

Parties
Appellant: Frederick Clarkson Brooker; First Respondent: Friend & Brooker Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment of Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Equitable Contribution, Final Orders, Accounting Between Business Partners, Effect of Reasons for Judgment
Equity Civil Procedure Equitable Contribution Final Orders Accounting Between Business Partners Effect of Reasons for Judgment

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Clarkson Brooker

Appellant

Friend & Brooker Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Second Respondent

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment of Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Form of declaration for contribution between business partners
  2. 2 Whether all of a loan was used for business purposes
  3. 3 Set-off of advances between partners

Ratio Decidendi

The right to contribution by the appellant arose with respect to the burden of the SMK borrowing as it stood in 1995, and the second respondent is required to contribute equally to the obligations under the loan from that time, with the proper accounting for repayments, and interest to be determined in accordance with the reasons of the majority. Application to reopen issues already decided was rejected.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of Nicholas J of 20 April 2005 set aside.