Reynolds v Medway [2013] NSWSC 206

Reynolds v Medway [2013] NSWSC 206

The partnership was not for a fixed term or a single undertaking and no current term or agreement prevented dissolution by notice. The solicitor's November 2011 letters did not themselves dissolve the partnership, but the filing of the summons on 19 November 2012 constituted notice of intention to dissolve it. Upon dissolution, the Plaintiff was entitled in principle to have the partnership property sold and applied under s 39 of the Partnership Act 1892. There was also no agreement, proprietary right, fiduciary obligation, life estate, right of residence or other circumstance justifying refusal of statutory sale orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Appointment of Trustees for Sale of Co Owned Partnership Property / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Judgment Revised 18 March 2013
Outcome
Relief in principle granted for the appointment of trustees for sale of the Property, with formal orders to be made in chambers after further material complying with s 66G(3) is filed.
Legal Topics
['dissolution of Partnership' 'winding Up of Partnership Property' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'co Owned Property' 'conveyancing Act S 66 G']
['partnership' 'real Property' 'equity'] ['dissolution of Partnership' 'winding Up of Partnership Property' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'co Owned Property' 'conveyancing Act S 66 G']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Summons Seeking Appointment of Trustees for Sale of Co Owned Partnership Property / Principal Judgment; Ex Tempore Judgment Revised 18 March 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff's conduct or words amounted to notice of an intention to dissolve the partnership under s 32 of the Partnership Act 1892." 'Whether any agreement between the parties prevented dissolution of the partnership or justified refusal of orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.' 'Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the appointment of trustees for sale of the Property.']

Ratio Decidendi

The partnership was not for a fixed term or a single undertaking and no current term or agreement prevented dissolution by notice. The solicitor's November 2011 letters did not themselves dissolve the partnership, but the filing of the summons on 19 November 2012 constituted notice of intention to dissolve it. Upon dissolution, the Plaintiff was entitled in principle to have the partnership property sold and applied under s 39 of the Partnership Act 1892. There was also no agreement, proprietary right, fiduciary obligation, life estate, right of residence or other circumstance justifying refusal of statutory sale orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919.

Court Disposition

Relief in principle granted for the appointment of trustees for sale of the Property, with formal orders to be made in chambers after further material complying with s 66G(3) is filed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to the Plaintiff to file, within the next 14 days, an amended summons and further material for the purpose of complying with requirements under s 66G(3) of the Conveyancing Act in relation to the appointment of individual trustees.' 'Upon the Plaintiff filing a proposed amended summons and further affidavit...