Bishop v Golstein

Bishop v Golstein

The appeal fails because Section 35(d) of the Partnership Act 1890 provides a discretionary test for dissolution that does not depend on repudiation or affirmation; the appellant's breaches were continuing and made it impracticable for the respondent to continue in partnership, justifying dissolution and a claim for damages.

Parties
Appellant: Bishop; Respondent: Golstein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Partnership, Breach of Partnership Agreement, Damages for Early Termination, Affirmation and Waiver, Continuing Breach
Partnership Law Contract Law Dissolution of Partnership Breach of Partnership Agreement Damages for Early Termination Affirmation and Waiver Continuing Breach

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bishop

Appellant

Golstein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's breaches of the partnership agreement justified dissolution under Section 35(d) of the Partnership Act 1890
  2. 2 Whether affirmation or waiver by the respondent precluded a claim for damages
  3. 3 Whether the 'last straw' doctrine applied to partnership dissolution

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because Section 35(d) of the Partnership Act 1890 provides a discretionary test for dissolution that does not depend on repudiation or affirmation; the appellant's breaches were continuing and made it impracticable for the respondent to continue in partnership, justifying dissolution and a claim for damages.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.