Rowlands v Hodson

Rowlands v Hodson

The partnership deed created a genuine partnership between Mrs Rowlands and Mr Cloutman from 1 August 2000 to 31 July 2003. The requirements of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890 were satisfied. There was no evidence of any express or implied dissolution or variation of the partnership after the Law Society supervision dispensation in December 2001. Mrs Rowlands remained a partner throughout the relevant period, despite her limited involvement and waiver of profit share.

Parties
Appellant/sixth Defendant: Julienne Rowlands; Respondent/claimant: Paul Simon Graham Hodson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Preliminary Issue
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Solicitors' Supervision Requirements, Variation and Dissolution of Partnership, Liability of Partners
Partnership Law Professional Regulation Existence of Partnership Solicitors' Supervision Requirements Variation and Dissolution of Partnership Liability of Partners

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

Parties

Julienne Rowlands

Appellant/sixth Defendant

Paul Simon Graham Hodson

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Rowlands was a partner in Tudor Rose with Mr Cloutman between 1 August 2000 and 31 July 2003
  2. 2 Whether the partnership was terminated or varied by conduct after December 2001
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890 were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The partnership deed created a genuine partnership between Mrs Rowlands and Mr Cloutman from 1 August 2000 to 31 July 2003. The requirements of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890 were satisfied. There was no evidence of any express or implied dissolution or variation of the partnership after the Law Society supervision dispensation in December 2001. Mrs Rowlands remained a partner throughout the relevant period, despite her limited involvement and waiver of profit share.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that Mrs Rowlands was a partner in Tudor Rose with Mr Cloutman between 1 August 2000 and 31 July 2003 stands
  • Mrs Rowlands to pay sums totalling just under £245,000 to Paul Hodson