Boyle v Burke & Anor

Boyle v Burke & Anor

The court held that clause 2.43 of the 1987 Deed is predicated on an actual dissolution of the partnership, which requires an agreement by the partners to dissolve. On the facts, there was no such agreement, express or inferred, as the defendants specifically intended to avoid dissolution. Mere cessation of business or transfer of assets is insufficient to constitute dissolution under the Partnership Act 1890. Accordingly, the claimant's pension entitlement under clause 2.43 was not triggered by the transfer to Bells Solicitors Limited.

Parties
Claimant: John Jarlath Boyle; Defendant: Dermot Francis Michael Burke; Defendant: Jeremy Sean Charles Cave
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Partnership, Pension Entitlements, Interpretation of Partnership Deeds
Partnership Law Contract Law Dissolution of Partnership Pension Entitlements Interpretation of Partnership Deeds

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Jarlath Boyle

Claimant

Dermot Francis Michael Burke

Defendant

Jeremy Sean Charles Cave

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of the partnership's business to Bells Solicitors Limited constituted a dissolution triggering the claimant's pension entitlement under clause 2.43 of the 1987 Deed
  2. 2 Whether cessation of business or transfer of assets amounts to dissolution under the Partnership Act 1890
  3. 3 Whether an agreement to dissolve can be inferred or imputed from the conduct of the partners

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that clause 2.43 of the 1987 Deed is predicated on an actual dissolution of the partnership, which requires an agreement by the partners to dissolve. On the facts, there was no such agreement, express or inferred, as the defendants specifically intended to avoid dissolution. Mere cessation of business or transfer of assets is insufficient to constitute dissolution under the Partnership Act 1890. Accordingly, the claimant's pension entitlement under clause 2.43 was not triggered by the transfer to Bells Solicitors Limited.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed