James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd.& Ors v Hird & Ors [2005] EWHC 1093 (Ch) (27 May 2005)

James Hay Pension Trustees Ltd.& Ors v Hird & Ors [2005] EWHC 1093 (Ch) (27 May 2005)

The Partnership Deed is clear and unambiguous, and there is no credible evidence or pleading to support rectification or variation. The claimants, as trustees, are not bound by any alleged overarching partnership. The claimants are entitled to summary judgment for their share of the proceeds as specified in the Partnership Deed.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1093 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: James Hay Pension Trustees Limited; Claimant: Colin Molyneux; Claimant: Alison Molyneux; Defendant: Kean Hird; Defendant: Ian Harris; Defendant: Andrew Coe; Defendant: Frame Investments Limited; Defendant: Frame (Sussex) Limited; Defendant: Daniel Auerbach & Company LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of claimants
Legal Topics
Rectification of Partnership Deed, Beneficial Ownership, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Connected Party Rules, Summary Judgment, Partnership Dissolution
Trusts Partnership Equity Company Law Rectification of Partnership Deed Beneficial Ownership Breach of Fiduciary Duty Connected Party Rules +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hay Pension Trustees Limited

Claimant

Colin Molyneux

Claimant

Alison Molyneux

Claimant

Kean Hird

Defendant

Ian Harris

Defendant

Andrew Coe

Defendant

Frame Investments Limited

Defendant

Frame (Sussex) Limited

Defendant

Daniel Auerbach & Company LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Partnership is the beneficial owner of the Special Partner interest in the South Downs Partnership (SDP)
  2. 2 Whether the Partnership Deed should be rectified to reflect an alleged overarching partnership
  3. 3 Whether the defendants breached duties under the Partnership Deed

Ratio Decidendi

The Partnership Deed is clear and unambiguous, and there is no credible evidence or pleading to support rectification or variation. The claimants, as trustees, are not bound by any alleged overarching partnership. The claimants are entitled to summary judgment for their share of the proceeds as specified in the Partnership Deed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of claimants

Orders

  • Declaration that the Partnership is the beneficial owner of the Special Partner interest in the SDP
  • Order that defendants take all necessary steps to register the Special Partner interest in the name of the Partnership