If you'd like to contact me my please look for James d'Apice or Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite social media spot - I should pop up right away! (TikTok is one of my strongest suits these days!)

___

Two partners P2 and D4 - both companies - were in partnership from 1996 to 2003.  The Ps said that D1 had been paid partnership money and sought an order for the taking of partnership accounts: [2]  

The Ps made other claims in relation to alleged subsequent agreements. (But we won’t engage with those.)  

The partnership related to a quarry founded in the 1960s and to gabbro, a shiny black rock sometimes called “granite”: [6]  Importantly, both first grade gabbro and second grade were quarried: [7]  

P2 continued to do quarrying work at the quarry after the partnership ended: [13]  

During quarrying activities material disturbed or displaced during quarrying was placed in stockpiles in the quarry: [18]  

The Court worked through the complex background to the mining and leasing arrangements: [23] - [48]  

The partnership paid out some of its proceeds by way of monthly payments to D1: [52]  

The Ps objected to the payments made to D1: [58]  (Interestingly, D1 could not recall what the payments were for: [105])  

The Ds resisted the other claims on the basis that the partnership ended in 2003, a Limitations Act defence, and the defence of settled accounts: [62], [63]  

D1 accepted that accounts had to be settled for the settled accounts defence to apply, and says the right to mine was not an asset of the partnership, and the stockpiled material was no longer separate from the land (or alternatively was not possible to value or quantity): [66]

The stockpile was the subject of heavy consideration including: 

- whether it had come to be a fixture, a part of the land: [120] 

- the difficulty sorting out the stockpile created in 1996 - 2003 from other material in the stockpile: [121] 

- expert evidence that the stockpile was “impossible” to quantify: [122] 

- the fact that further material was added to the stockpile from 2003 to 2014: [174], [179] 

- the Ds’ failure to substantiate their estimate of how much was in the stockpile: [185]  

The right to mine or quarry was not an asset of the partnership, as it was a separate parcel of rights that that partners had to procure: [227]  

The Court found the business of the partnership included the sale of granite (not just quarrying) meaning the monies paid to D1 were partnership monies: [233]  

However, the Ps did not plead constructive trust by way of “knowing receipt” by D1 [237] nor a claim against D4 for breach of fiduciary duties as partner: [239]  

As such the Ps raised no good basis for D1 to repay the money.  The application seeking an account was rejected because: (i) the right to mine or quarry was not an asset of the partnership, and (ii) it was impossible to quantify the stockpile attributable to the 1996 - 2003 partnership: [243] - [247]  

All the Ps’ claims failed. Proceedings dismissed: [262]  ___