Burden & Anor v Ernst & Young [2001] EWCA Civ 1894 (7 November 2001)

There are important points of practice and principle regarding the liability of partnerships for the acts of partners as administrative receivers, justifying permission to appeal on all grounds.

Citation: [2001] EWCA Civ 1894
Parties: Claimant/applicant: Norman John Burden; Claimant/applicant: Patricia Caroline Hayes; Defendant/respondent: Ernst & Young
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 07 November 2001
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome: Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics: Vicarious Liability of Partnerships, Personal Liability of Administrative Receivers, Permission to Amend Pleadings, Limitation Period

Company Law Partnership Law Insolvency Vicarious Liability of Partnerships Personal Liability of Administrative Receivers Permission to Amend Pleadings Limitation Period

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Norman John Burden

Claimant/applicant

Patricia Caroline Hayes

Claimant/applicant

Ernst & Young

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether a partnership is vicariously liable for the acts of its partners acting as administrative receivers
2 Whether permission to amend pleadings to add parties or claims should be granted after limitation period
3 Whether there is a compelling reason for a second appeal on points of principle or practice

Ratio Decidendi

There are important points of practice and principle regarding the liability of partnerships for the acts of partners as administrative receivers, justifying permission to appeal on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

Application allowed
Costs to be costs in the appeal