Doherty v Posnett & Anor [2009] NICh 7 (30 July 2009)

Doherty v Posnett & Anor [2009] NICh 7 (30 July 2009)

The court found that participation of the mare in the forthcoming competitions is necessary to wind up the partnership affairs under Section 38 of the Partnership Act 1890. The Plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for injunctive relief or that non-competition was necessary. The balance of convenience favoured the Defendants. The Defendants' application for an elaborate sale scheme was refused as unnecessary and potentially restrictive.

Citation
[2009] NICh 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Jude Doherty; First Defendant: Pamela Posnett; Second Defendant: Suzanne Posnett
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Partnership Dissolution Dispute / Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for interim injunction refused; Defendants' application for order for sale and agent refused.
Legal Topics
Partnership Dissolution, Interim Injunctions, Sale of Partnership Property, Management of Partnership Assets
Partnership Law Chancery Partnership Dissolution Interim Injunctions Sale of Partnership Property Management of Partnership Assets

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jude Doherty

Plaintiff

Pamela Posnett

First Defendant

Suzanne Posnett

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partnership Dissolution Dispute / Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mare 'Touchable' should be restrained from competition pending winding up of partnership
  2. 2 Whether either partner can unilaterally deploy the partnership asset during winding up
  3. 3 Whether an order for sale or appointment of agent is necessary

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that participation of the mare in the forthcoming competitions is necessary to wind up the partnership affairs under Section 38 of the Partnership Act 1890. The Plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for injunctive relief or that non-competition was necessary. The balance of convenience favoured the Defendants. The Defendants' application for an elaborate sale scheme was refused as unnecessary and potentially restrictive.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for interim injunction refused; Defendants' application for order for sale and agent refused.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief refused.
  • Defendants' application for order for sale under Section 91 refused.