Worbey & Anor, Reclaiming Motion by v Campbell & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSIH_49 (26 July 2017)

Worbey & Anor, Reclaiming Motion by v Campbell & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSIH_49 (26 July 2017)

The court held that the Lord Ordinary was entitled to find, on the facts, that no partnership existed between the parties. The existence of a business relationship with a view to profit does not automatically constitute a partnership; it must be shown that the business was carried on 'in common', involving mutual rights and obligations. The absence of consensus, intention to create legal relations, and key partnership features meant the relationship was not a partnership under the Partnership Act 1890.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_49
Parties
Pursuer/reclaimer: Steven Worbey; Pursuer/reclaimer: Kevin Farrell; Defender/respondent: Sharon Laughland Campbell; Defender/respondent: Wapo Y Wapa Limited; Defender/respondent: Matthew Chadwick, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Steven Elliott
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Business Relationship, Contract Formation
Commercial Law Partnership Law Existence of Partnership Business Relationship Contract Formation

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Worbey

Pursuer/reclaimer

Kevin Farrell

Pursuer/reclaimer

Sharon Laughland Campbell

Defender/respondent

Wapo Y Wapa Limited

Defender/respondent

Matthew Chadwick, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Steven Elliott

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the pursuers and Mr Elliott for the exploitation of gay dating apps
  2. 2 Whether the parties' business relationship amounted to carrying on a business in common with a view to profit
  3. 3 Whether there was consensus ad idem and intention to create legal relations

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Lord Ordinary was entitled to find, on the facts, that no partnership existed between the parties. The existence of a business relationship with a view to profit does not automatically constitute a partnership; it must be shown that the business was carried on 'in common', involving mutual rights and obligations. The absence of consensus, intention to create legal relations, and key partnership features meant the relationship was not a partnership under the Partnership Act 1890.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Reclaiming motion refused.
  • No partnership declared to exist.