Ham v Bell & Ors [2016] EWHC 1791 (Ch) (11 April 2016)

Ham v Bell & Ors [2016] EWHC 1791 (Ch) (11 April 2016)

There was no express or implied agreement to make the farm or milk quota assets of the new partnership. The inclusion of the farm in the accounts from 1998 to 2003 was an accounting error, not evidence of an agreement. The error was corrected in 2004 and subsequent accounts. The partnership accounts and conduct of the parties do not support John's claim. There was no dishonourable conduct or concealment by the Defendants. The farm and milk quota remained the personal property of Ronald and Jean Ham.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1791 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: John Ronald Ham; Defendant: Jeremy Bevan Bell; Defendant: Keith Harden Turner; Defendant: Lorna Jean Ham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Partnership Assets, Implied Agreement, Rectification of Accounts, Farming Partnerships, Accounting Errors, Dishonourable Conduct, Wills and Succession
Partnership Law Property Law Equity Partnership Assets Implied Agreement Rectification of Accounts Farming Partnerships Accounting Errors +2 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ronald Ham

Claimant

Jeremy Bevan Bell

Defendant

Keith Harden Turner

Defendant

Lorna Jean Ham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the farm and milk quota became assets of the new partnership formed in 1997
  2. 2 Whether inclusion of the farm in partnership accounts 1998-2003 constituted an implied agreement to make it a partnership asset
  3. 3 Whether subsequent removal of the farm from accounts was proper or constituted dishonourable conduct

Ratio Decidendi

There was no express or implied agreement to make the farm or milk quota assets of the new partnership. The inclusion of the farm in the accounts from 1998 to 2003 was an accounting error, not evidence of an agreement. The error was corrected in 2004 and subsequent accounts. The partnership accounts and conduct of the parties do not support John's claim. There was no dishonourable conduct or concealment by the Defendants. The farm and milk quota remained the personal property of Ronald and Jean Ham.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the farm and milk quota were not assets of the new partnership
  • Refusal of application to amend pleadings to allege dishonourable conduct