Khan v Mohammed & Anor [2009] EWHC 3916 (Ch) (04 March 2009)

Khan v Mohammed & Anor [2009] EWHC 3916 (Ch) (04 March 2009)

The court found that a partnership existed between the claimant and first defendant from 1996 until dissolved by written notice in April 2006; that the property at Armoury Road was purchased as a partnership asset and is held on trust for the partnership; that the alleged sale of the business by the claimant to the first defendant was not genuine; and that the first defendant is accountable to the claimant for his share of the partnership assets and profits.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3916 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sahibzad Khan; First Defendant: Gulab Mohammed; Second Defendant: Pir Mohammed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Partnership Existence and Dissolution, Beneficial Ownership of Property, Resulting/constructive Trusts, Business Asset Disputes
Partnership Law Property Law Equity Partnership Existence and Dissolution Beneficial Ownership of Property Resulting/constructive Trusts Business Asset Disputes

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sahibzad Khan

Claimant

Gulab Mohammed

First Defendant

Pir Mohammed

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the claimant and first defendant and for what period
  2. 2 Whether the property at Armoury Road was a partnership asset or held on trust for the claimant and first defendant
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant purchased the business from the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a partnership existed between the claimant and first defendant from 1996 until dissolved by written notice in April 2006; that the property at Armoury Road was purchased as a partnership asset and is held on trust for the partnership; that the alleged sale of the business by the claimant to the first defendant was not genuine; and that the first defendant is accountable to the claimant for his share of the partnership assets and profits.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that a partnership existed between the claimant and first defendant until April 2006
  • Declaration that the property at Armoury Road is a partnership asset held on trust for the partnership