Hopper & Anor v Hopper

Hopper & Anor v Hopper

The Court of Appeal held that undrawn profits were capitalised by implied agreement, so limitation did not bar Mrs Hopper's claim; there were separate capital accounts; laches did not apply; following Mr Hopper's death, Mrs Hopper was an 'outgoing partner' under s.42 of the Partnership Act 1890, and, absent a general agreement to the contrary, was only entitled to a share of post-2004 profits as specified in s.42(1).

Parties
Appellant: Robert John Hopper; Appellant: Lyn Patricia Hopper; Respondent: June Lilian Hopper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Partnership, Capital and Profit Entitlements, Limitation Periods, Doctrine of Laches, Outgoing Partner Rights, Section 42 Partnership Act 1890
Partnership Law Equity Limitation Dissolution of Partnership Capital and Profit Entitlements Limitation Periods Doctrine of Laches Outgoing Partner Rights +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Hopper

Appellant

Lyn Patricia Hopper

Appellant

June Lilian Hopper

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether undrawn profit shares were added to capital and subject to limitation only on dissolution
  2. 2 Whether there were separate capital accounts or a joint account
  3. 3 Whether limitation or laches barred the claim for undrawn profits/capital

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that undrawn profits were capitalised by implied agreement, so limitation did not bar Mrs Hopper's claim; there were separate capital accounts; laches did not apply; following Mr Hopper's death, Mrs Hopper was an 'outgoing partner' under s.42 of the Partnership Act 1890, and, absent a general agreement to the contrary, was only entitled to a share of post-2004 profits as specified in s.42(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Declaration substituted: Mrs Hopper and the Estate are entitled to such share of the profits of the business of the Market Partnership since 31 December 2004 as specified in s.42(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 for an outgoing partner or his estate.
  • Otherwise, appeal dismissed.