Ham v Bell & Ors
There was no express or implied agreement to make the farm and milk quota assets of the new partnership; their inclusion in earlier accounts was a mistake, later corrected. John Ham always knew his parents' intention and was not misled or deprived of information. The partnership accounts do not evidence an agreement to transfer ownership, and rectification is not warranted.
- 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
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Partnership Assets, Implied Agreements, Rectification of Accounts, Inheritance, Farming Partnerships
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Ronald Ham
Claimant
Jeremy Bevan Bell
Defendant
Keith Harden Turner
Defendant
Lorna Jean Ham
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the farm and milk quota became assets of the new partnership
- 2 Effect of partnership accounts on asset ownership
- 3 Rectification of partnership accounts
Ratio Decidendi
There was no express or implied agreement to make the farm and milk quota assets of the new partnership; their inclusion in earlier accounts was a mistake, later corrected. John Ham always knew his parents' intention and was not misled or deprived of information. The partnership accounts do not evidence an agreement to transfer ownership, and rectification is not warranted.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Orders
- The farm and milk quota are not assets of the new partnership.
- No rectification of partnership accounts is ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment