Patel v Patel

Patel v Patel

The arbitrator erred in law by finding that the allocation of profits for two years and the signing of accounts amounted to a variation of the partnership agreements. Such conduct was at most a waiver for those periods, not a clear and unambiguous intention to permanently vary the agreements. The written partnership agreements, requiring equal division of profits and losses, remained unvaried. The arbitrator also erred in finding a variation regarding the Mitcham Practice based on equivocal evidence given during the arbitration. The appeals under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 therefore succeed.

Parties
Claimant: Dakshu Patel; Defendant: Kesha Patel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal allowed; arbitral award varied
Legal Topics
Variation of Partnership Agreements, Course of Dealing, Waiver of Contractual Rights, Costs in Arbitration
Arbitration Partnership Law Contract Law Variation of Partnership Agreements Course of Dealing Waiver of Contractual Rights Costs in Arbitration

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dakshu Patel

Claimant

Kesha Patel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the partnership agreements for the Purley and Mitcham dental practices were varied by conduct or course of dealing under section 19 of the Partnership Act 1890
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator erred in law in finding a variation of profit shares
  3. 3 Whether there was a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in the arbitral proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator erred in law by finding that the allocation of profits for two years and the signing of accounts amounted to a variation of the partnership agreements. Such conduct was at most a waiver for those periods, not a clear and unambiguous intention to permanently vary the agreements. The written partnership agreements, requiring equal division of profits and losses, remained unvaried. The arbitrator also erred in finding a variation regarding the Mitcham Practice based on equivocal evidence given during the arbitration. The appeals under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 therefore succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; arbitral award varied

Orders

  • The parties did not vary the written partnership agreements relating to the Purley Practice and the Mitcham Practice; profits and losses to be shared equally.
  • The supplementary award on costs is varied: the Claimant recovers 80% of £95,865.72 (£76,692.57), the Defendant recovers 10% of £80,353.80 (£8,035.38), resulting in a net payment of £68,657.19 to the Claimant.