Daniels & Ors v Deville & Ors [2008] EWHC 1810 (Ch) (25 July 2008)

Daniels & Ors v Deville & Ors [2008] EWHC 1810 (Ch) (25 July 2008)

The court held that the arrangements between the parties constituted a hybrid joint venture outside the Partnership Act 1890, not a partnership within the Act. The Deed of Dissolution was binding and governed the winding up of the joint venture, including the identification of assets and the order of priority for distributions. Inter-company loans shown in the accounts were genuine loans and repayable, not gifts. The court found all principal witnesses unreliable due to untruthful evidence, especially regarding the backdating of documents. The claimants were entitled to an account and repayment of loan accounts as per the Deed of Dissolution, but not to all relief sought. Counterclaims...

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1810 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Jack Daniels; Claimant: Jacqueline Doris Daniels; Claimant: Martin Gerald Daniels; Claimant: Richard John Daniels; Claimant: Cheryl Patricia Tomline; Claimant: Jennifer Claire Ridley; Claimant: Rosemarie Daniels; Claimant: Pickenham Homes Limited; Defendant: Alan Charles Deville; Defendant: Nigel Lewis; Defendant: Heather Jane Lewis; Defendant: Gisby Harrison (a firm); Defendant: Fawkon Centre Limited; Defendant: Samuel Beadie (Walsworth) Limited; Defendant: Samuel Beadie (Investments) Limited; Defendant: Samuel Beadie (Properties) Limited; Defendant: Stephen Cork; Defendant: Anthony Murphy; Defendant: Richard Daniels Homes Limited; Defendant: Richard Daniels (Hitchin) Limited; Defendant: Richard Daniels Developments Limited; Defendant: DCC (Milton Keynes) Limited; Defendant: Echopoint Limited; Defendant: Newton Byre Construction Ltd; Claimant: Bondor Developments Limited; Claimant: Newton Byre Limited; Defendant: Pickenham Estates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Chancery Multi Party Commercial Dispute (consolidated Actions) / First Instance Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Partial judgment for claimants; declarations and orders for account and repayment of loan accounts as per Deed of Dissolution; other relief and counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Joint Venture Disputes, Shareholder Agreements, Partnership/joint Venture Dissolution, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence by Solicitor, Fraud and Misrepresentation, Inter Company Loans, Receivership, Counterclaims and Set Off
Company Law Partnership Law Equity and Trusts Contract Law Joint Venture Disputes Shareholder Agreements Partnership/joint Venture Dissolution Breach of Fiduciary Duty +5 more

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

Parties

Richard Jack Daniels

Claimant

Jacqueline Doris Daniels

Claimant

Martin Gerald Daniels

Claimant

Richard John Daniels

Claimant

Cheryl Patricia Tomline

Claimant

Jennifer Claire Ridley

Claimant

Rosemarie Daniels

Claimant

Pickenham Homes Limited

Claimant

Alan Charles Deville

Defendant

Nigel Lewis

Defendant

Heather Jane Lewis

Defendant

Gisby Harrison (a firm)

Defendant

Fawkon Centre Limited

Defendant

Samuel Beadie (Walsworth) Limited

Defendant

Samuel Beadie (Investments) Limited

Defendant

Samuel Beadie (Properties) Limited

Defendant

Stephen Cork

Defendant

Anthony Murphy

Defendant

Richard Daniels Homes Limited

Defendant

Richard Daniels (Hitchin) Limited

Defendant

Richard Daniels Developments Limited

Defendant

DCC (Milton Keynes) Limited

Defendant

Echopoint Limited

Defendant

Newton Byre Construction Ltd

Defendant

Bondor Developments Limited

Claimant

Newton Byre Limited

Claimant

Pickenham Estates Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Multi Party Commercial Dispute (consolidated Actions) / First Instance Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrangements between the parties constituted a partnership under the Partnership Act 1890 or a joint venture outside the Act
  2. 2 Whether certain properties and assets were assets of the joint venture and subject to account
  3. 3 Whether inter-company loans were repayable or subventions/gifts

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arrangements between the parties constituted a hybrid joint venture outside the Partnership Act 1890, not a partnership within the Act. The Deed of Dissolution was binding and governed the winding up of the joint venture, including the identification of assets and the order of priority for distributions. Inter-company loans shown in the accounts were genuine loans and repayable, not gifts. The court found all principal witnesses unreliable due to untruthful evidence, especially regarding the backdating of documents. The claimants were entitled to an account and repayment of loan accounts as per the Deed of Dissolution, but not to all relief sought. Counterclaims...

Court Disposition

Partial judgment for claimants; declarations and orders for account and repayment of loan accounts as per Deed of Dissolution; other relief and counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • Declarations as to joint venture assets per DoD schedule
  • Order for account and repayment of loan accounts to claimants in priority