Mir v Mir

The appeal concerned a dispute between three brothers, the parties to the proceedings, regarding the existence and nature of a partnership within their business group, the Mir Group. The primary judge had initially rejected the appellant's claim for an unwritten overarching partnership but subsequently declared that an unwritten agreement between the brothers gave rise to a partnership. The appeal also involved issues concerning the appointment and removal of trustees, specifically whether the primary judge erred in declining to remove trustees despite their misconduct in denying trust property and serious findings made against one trustee.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in failing to find an unwritten overarching partnership that sat above the corporate and trust structures holding the Mir Group's properties. Further, the court had to consider whether it was open to the appellant to contend on appeal that the unwritten agreement, as declared by the primary judge, itself constituted a partnership between the three brothers. Additionally, the court was asked to assess whether the primary judge made a *House v The King* error in refusing to remove trustees, notwithstanding their misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in relation to the partnership claim, finding no error in the primary judge's determination that the unwritten agreement between the brothers gave rise to a partnership. The court also dismissed the appeal concerning the removal of trustees, concluding that the primary judge did not err in declining to remove them despite the identified misconduct. The reasoning focused on the application of partnership law and the principles governing the removal of trustees, upholding the primary judge's findings on both fronts.

Consequently, the appeal brought by John was dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal was granted in the appeal brought by Leo, which was also dismissed with costs.