Blundon et al. v. Storm

Blundon et al. v. Storm

The appellants were not guilty of laches; the partnership remained subsisting despite respondent's secret acquisition of licences which he held for the benefit of the partnership; equitable accounting was appropriate and the trial judge's apportionment (75% to respondent, 25% to appellants) was restored.

Citation
[1972] SCR 135
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ronald Blundon; Plaintiff/appellant: Willard Dillon; Plaintiff/appellant: Joseph Nearing; Plaintiff/appellant: Robert D. MacDonald; Plaintiff/appellant: Hyman Goldberg; Defendant/respondent: Alexander Storm
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal — Partnership/accounting Dispute Over Salvage/treasure / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored
Legal Topics
Laches, Accounting Between Partners, Partnership Agreement Enforcement, Treasure Trove Licence, Salvage Rights
Source Language
English
Contract Partnership Equity Maritime Law Property Laches Accounting Between Partners Partnership Agreement Enforcement +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Blundon

Plaintiff/appellant

Willard Dillon

Plaintiff/appellant

Joseph Nearing

Plaintiff/appellant

Robert D. MacDonald

Plaintiff/appellant

Hyman Goldberg

Plaintiff/appellant

Alexander Storm

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal — Partnership/accounting Dispute Over Salvage/treasure / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were barred by laches from claiming a share of the recovered treasure
  2. 2 Whether respondent's secret acquisition of licences and conduct terminated or extinguished the partnership rights of the appellants
  3. 3 Whether an accounting among partners was the appropriate remedy and what equitable division was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants were not guilty of laches; the partnership remained subsisting despite respondent's secret acquisition of licences which he held for the benefit of the partnership; equitable accounting was appropriate and the trial judge's apportionment (75% to respondent, 25% to appellants) was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored

Orders

  • Restore trial judgment awarding 75% of recovered treasure to Alexander Storm and 25% to be divided among the appellants
  • Costs awarded to the appellants, including costs of the motion to quash, in the Supreme Court of Canada and Appeal Division