Cannon -v- Nicol and Nicol 28-Jun-2006 [2006] JRC 089A (28 June 2006)

Cannon -v- Nicol and Nicol 28-Jun-2006 [2006] JRC 089A (28 June 2006)

The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, a partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to Total Recycling and Total Skip Services, based on the conduct of the parties, mutual involvement in business decisions, and representations to third parties. However, the property was not a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] JRC 089A
Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Cannon; Defendant: Sheila M Nicol; Interested Party: Ian Nicol
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
28 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
partly in favour of plaintiff
Legal Topics
Partnership Formation, Proprietary Estoppel, Business Tenancies, Joint Venture, Accounting for Partnership Assets
Commercial Law Property Law Partnership Law Partnership Formation Proprietary Estoppel Business Tenancies Joint Venture Accounting for Partnership Assets

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Cannon

Plaintiff

Sheila M Nicol

Defendant

Ian Nicol

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to Total Recycling and Total Skip Services
  2. 2 Whether the property acquired was a partnership asset or subject to proprietary estoppel in favour of the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the defendant terminated the partnership in bad faith

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, a partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to Total Recycling and Total Skip Services, based on the conduct of the parties, mutual involvement in business decisions, and representations to third parties. However, the property was not a partnership asset, as it was acquired solely by the defendant and Mr Nicol with their own funds, and there was insufficient evidence of an enforceable assurance or detrimental reliance to establish proprietary estoppel in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was entitled to terminate the partnership, but must account to the plaintiff for his share of the business assets and...

Court Disposition

partly in favour of plaintiff

Orders

  • Declaration that a partnership existed between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to Total Recycling and Total Skip Services
  • Order for the defendant to account to the plaintiff for his share of partnership assets and profits up to the date of termination