Mary Ann Robinson v Edward Reeve [2002] EWHC 1179 (Ch) (14 June 2002)

Mary Ann Robinson v Edward Reeve [2002] EWHC 1179 (Ch) (14 June 2002)

A partnership existed between Mrs. Robinson, Mr. Reeve, and their mother in relation to the Pimlico properties and the letting business after the winding up of ARIL, encompassing both the rental income and the properties themselves (except for 12 Lupus Street and certain later acquisitions). However, properties acquired in the sole name of one party after the initial period, with the knowledge and consent of the other, did not become partnership property but remained the sole property of the acquiring party.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1179 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mary Ann Robinson; Defendant: Edward Reeve
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declaration granted in part; claim otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Partnership Property, Co Ownership, Declarations of Trust, Business Structures, Beneficial Interests
Equity Property Law Partnership Law Resulting Trusts Partnership Property Co Ownership Declarations of Trust Business Structures +1 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Ann Robinson

Claimant

Edward Reeve

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the parties in relation to the Pimlico properties and rental income
  2. 2 Whether certain properties acquired in the sole name of one party were partnership property or held on resulting trust for both parties
  3. 3 Whether after-acquired properties were partnership assets or individually owned

Ratio Decidendi

A partnership existed between Mrs. Robinson, Mr. Reeve, and their mother in relation to the Pimlico properties and the letting business after the winding up of ARIL, encompassing both the rental income and the properties themselves (except for 12 Lupus Street and certain later acquisitions). However, properties acquired in the sole name of one party after the initial period, with the knowledge and consent of the other, did not become partnership property but remained the sole property of the acquiring party.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in part; claim otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Pimlico properties and the freehold reversions acquired in 1971 (except for 12 Lupus Street) were partnership property.
  • Declaration that 70 and 72 Denbigh Street and other after-acquired properties in the sole name of one party are not partnership property and are owned by the named party alone.