Burnett v Barker [2021] EWHC 3332 (Ch) (09 December 2021)

Burnett v Barker [2021] EWHC 3332 (Ch) (09 December 2021)

No partnership existed between Claimant and Defendant in respect of Site Rescue. There was no express or implied agreement to carry on business in partnership. The arrangement was for administrative and event services to be provided by Claimant (via BTS) and remunerated by cross-charging. Claimant is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services provided, but has already been paid for work done.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3332 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Josephine Burnett; Defendant: Anthony Barker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dispute / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed as to partnership claim; alternative claim for compensation resolved by finding that Claimant has already been remunerated.
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Implied Agreement, Quantum Meruit, Contractual Remuneration
Commercial Law Partnership Law Existence of Partnership Implied Agreement Quantum Meruit Contractual Remuneration

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Burnett

Claimant

Anthony Barker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dispute / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between Claimant and Defendant under section 1(1) Partnership Act 1890
  2. 2 If partnership existed, what are the partners' respective shares
  3. 3 If no partnership, basis for reasonable value of Claimant's services to Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

No partnership existed between Claimant and Defendant in respect of Site Rescue. There was no express or implied agreement to carry on business in partnership. The arrangement was for administrative and event services to be provided by Claimant (via BTS) and remunerated by cross-charging. Claimant is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services provided, but has already been paid for work done.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as to partnership claim; alternative claim for compensation resolved by finding that Claimant has already been remunerated.

Orders

  • No partnership found; no winding up or accounts ordered.
  • Claimant entitled to reasonable remuneration for services provided, but has already been paid; no further inquiry or account ordered.