Sampey v Doherty

In the case of Sampey v Doherty, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered an appeal by the respondents against a decision of the Primary Judge that a partnership existed between the parties. The primary judge had found that a partnership existed between the parties, and had ordered the appellants to account for profits derived from the partnership business. The respondents argued that no partnership existed, and that the appellants were not liable to account for any profits. The legal issues before the court included whether a partnership had been formed in the absence of a written agreement, the nature and extent of the business of the partnership, and the appropriate analysis to be undertaken when a partnership evolves or develops over time.
The Full Court held that there was evidence to support the primary judge's finding that a partnership existed between the parties, and that the appellants were liable to account for profits derived from the partnership business. The court found that the primary judge had correctly identified the relevant factors to consider in determining whether a partnership existed, and had appropriately examined the course of conduct of the parties over time. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the primary judge had ignored an equitable defence, finding that the primary judge had addressed the defence in his reasons. The court also found that the primary judge had not misapprehended the requirements of the defence of laches, and that the appellate court was in a position to make appropriate findings of fact. Finally, the court found that the primary judge had made the necessary findings to support the grant of relief under the Australian Consumer Law, and that the appellants' conduct had been unconscionable in all the circumstances.