Partnership Case Law

The primary legal question facing the court is whether or not Ms Jonah and Mr White’s relationships can be classified and recognised as de-facto in accordance with the definition produced in section 4AA (1) of the Act. In order for the court to decide, it must be established if the pair’s relationships was one of a “genuine domestic basis”. The court must analyse Murphy J’s decision that the parties did not hold a “reputation” as a coupledom. Whether or not the feelings of both parties towards the grounds of their relationship was mutual is questioned. Furthermore, the appeal highlights that in accordance with the Act and precedence of Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343, it is possible for a marriage and a de-facto relationship to exist simultaneously, thus the court must address whether or not this fact is relevant to the decision.

Violet’s case is similar to the case Re Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878) 7 Ch D 511 in which the court considered the creditor a partner of the business concerned given that the creditor (Delhasse) had the right to control the property, had all the rights a dormant business partner would be expected to have, and rights to share profits and liability to share in losses.

Due to its nature, partnership is generally liable for the acts of the individual partners if committed in the course of the partnership business. However, liabilities of every partner may be regulated by the written agreement signed by partners. If no written agreement is signed by partners, liabilities of the partnership are regulated by the Partnership Act. If one of the partners retires, he or she may not be liable for the future debts of partnership if an official notice of the change is sent to creditors and the public. However, there were no official notice sent by the partners in the case; therefore, Toby may be liable for the debts of partnership. Due to the death of the third partner, partnership may be dissolved. In order to pay off the debts, assets should be sold and partners are free to continue the same kind of business after the dissolution of the

In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)

In his article ‘Equitable Rights of Cohabitees’ Hayton suggested that the distinction between common intention constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel has, over time, come to be but illusory and goes on further to propose that since the general direction of the development of the law has been to embrace the principle of preventing and remedying unconscionable conduct regardless of whether the claim brought before them was originally brought under the concept of a constructive trust or proprietary

Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.

To properly understand the events a chronological descripcion of the litigation is to be provided.

Pete’s injury is considered a non-criminal matter. I have recently been assigned his lawyer and we are trying to use the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method or civil litigation route to resolve the legal matters. After reviewing his case, he has sustained injuries from driving his four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when it rolled over on a trail behind his home. Due to his injuries, he has been out of work and has medical expenses. He is suing the manufacturer for the ATV being defective.

The plaintiff, First Colonial Bank for Savings entered into an interpleader action in the District court to determine who was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale. The foreclosed property belonged to the defendants, Robert H. and Sherrell L. Bergeron, and the codefendants, Ford Motor Credit Company, the junior mortgagee of the foreclosed property as a result of corporate restructuring Ford Consumer Finance Company was substituted as the defendant for Ford Motor Credit Company. Both the Bergerons and Ford filed motions for summary judgement as they both felt entitled to the surplus. The district court ruled in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company and denied the Bergerons motion. The Bergerons appealed the decision of the District Court because they argued that they filed for and were discharged from bankruptcy prior to the foreclosure sale, therefore they believed that the security interest granted to Ford prior to their petition does not carry over to the surplus funds received after filing the petition.

Finally, it was argued in Pearce that such a distinction violated a cohabitant’s Article 824 rights but Kennedy LJ was, rightly, very dismissive of such an argument25. It was recognised that had the exemption been widened it would have been difficult to “see where, logically, the widening should end”26. Establishing a criterion to be met before cohabitants could enjoy testimonial immunity would only create more arbitrary and discriminatory lines.

Family Law Act 1975, in the same year established the Family Court of Australia, and the Act focuses on issues as a result of martial breakdown, such as ‘no fault divorce’; best interest of children, equal valuation of partners contributions (breadwinner / homemaker), equal consideration of mother and father when assessing custody. The Act has been amended and evolved to include coverage for casual and de-facto relationships and ex-nuptial relationships, including distribution of debts and Superannuation as equal property, strengthening court process around domestic and family

This court case involved the plaintiff Hamptons Landscaping Service Inc., who had been represented by Lieb at Law, P.C. This side of the case then was seeking summary judgment to recover $17,217.00, from the defendants Michael & Frances Sherman who had been represented by Kelly and Hulme, P.C. which was alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action. The Sherman’s had crossed moved seeking an order dismissing Hampton's complaint, also had asserting that Second

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted the organisation 's appeal and reasoned that the spouse had gone about as the wife 's operators in the property 's exchange. The Court in this way held that both the

The claimant, Ahmad Raja Ghaidan, on the protected tenant’s death (Mr Hugh Wallwyn-James), brought possession proceedings by means of paragraph 2 schedule 1 the Rent Act 1977 . Two impediments went against Mr Godin-Mendoza, firstly, paragraph 2(2) is gender specific. Secondly, the ruling of the Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association in the House of Lords rejected the argument that a same-sex partner could bring himself or herself within the scope of paragraph 2(2) . The county court judge deemed that Godin-Mendoza did not succeed to the tenancy of the flat as the surviving spouse of the original tenant, but was granted a lesser assured tenancy by virtue of section 3(1) of the Rent Act as a member of the original tenant’s family .