WHEATLEY -v- BOWER & ORS [2001] WASCA 293
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 293 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:204/1999 | 9 MARCH 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ KENNEDY J WALLWORK J | 24/09/01 | |
| 51 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRIAN PHILIP WHEATLEY RONALD WILLIAM BOWER CONAL PATRICK O'TOOLE PATRICK DAVID MOSTYN HUGHES MERVYN ROTHSTEIN VALMA SYLVIA CEARNS AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF IAN ELDRED CEARNS (DEC) CEDRIC DAVID WILLIAMSON STEPHEN OWEN-CONWAY JOHN SWIFT VALMA SYLVIA CEARNS STEPHEN DEXTER CROOKS RICHARD JAMES LARRY McCORMACK RAOUL RUDOLPH CYWICKI GUY SHENTON FRENCH JOHN GERARD DEARN CRAIG ANTHONY MASAREI |
Catchwords: | Termination of partnership Law firm Whether a taking of accounts should have been ordered Whether entitled to summary judgment Whether partner entitled to relief of money sums from death of partner Whether good will write offs correctly accounted for Whether fee adjustments correctly provided for Whether insurance proceeds from death of a partner could not fall within the assets of the partnership Whether partnerships were entitled to discount work in progress upon the retirement of a partner Whether costs of the appeal be taxed as between solicitor and client |
Legislation: | Limitation Act 1935 (WA) Supreme Court Act 1935 |
Case References: | Australian Guarantee Ltd v De Jager [1984] VR 483 Binney v Mutrie (1886) 12 App Cas 160 Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd [No 1] (1981) 147 CLR 246 Carroll v Azolia Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980004; 19 January 1998 Collins v Westralian Sands Ltd (1993) 9 WAR 56 Fancourt & Anor v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397 Garwood v Garwood (1911) 105 LT 231 Gething v Keighley (1878) 9 Ch 547 Giles v Randall [1915] 1 KB 290 Hurst v Bryk [1999] Ch 1 Knox v Gye (1872) 42 Law Journal Ch 234 Levi v Stirling Brass Founders Pty Ltd (1997) 36 ATR 290 Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109 Oldaker v Lavender (1833) 6 Sim 239 Packer v Meagher [1984] 3 NSWLR 486 Phillips-Higgins v Harper [1954] 1 QB 411 Re Barber; Ex parte Barber (1870) 5 Ch App 687 Re Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1990) 1 WAR 465 Re Malley SM; Ex parte Gardner [2001] WASCA 83 Sim v Sim (1861) 11 I Ch R 310 Smith v Knarston [1872] VR 174 Spencer v Wenlock (1922) 25 WALR 114 Taylor v Southwood [1861] 1 WN (E) 29 Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 Unioil International Pty Ltd v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (No 2) (1997) 18 WAR 190 Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 Williamson v Barbour (1877) 9 Ch D 529 Anfrank Nominees Pty Ltd v Connell (1991) 6 WAR 271 Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] 1 Ch 250 Cargill v Bower (1878) 10 Ch… |
Continue reading Wheatley v Bower
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wheatley v Bower [2001] WASCA 293
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 293
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wheatley v Bower involved a dispute between partners in a law firm, Wheatley and Bower. The crux of the matter was the termination of their partnership and the subsequent accounting and financial issues that arose from it. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and ultimately the appeal was dismissed.
The central legal issues before the court were multifaceted. They included whether a taking of accounts should have been ordered, whether the partnership was entitled to summary judgment, and whether the surviving partner was entitled to relief of money sums following the death of the other partner. Other issues included whether goodwill write-offs were correctly accounted for, if fee adjustments were appropriately provided for, and whether insurance proceeds from the deceased partner's death could fall within the partnership's assets. Additionally, the court considered whether the partnerships were entitled to discount work in progress upon the retirement of a partner and whether the costs of the appeal should be taxed as between solicitor and client.
In its reasoning, the court found that the deceased partner's estate was not entitled to the summary judgment sought. It held that the partnership's accounts were properly taken, and that the goodwill write-offs and fee adjustments were correctly accounted for. The court also ruled that the insurance proceeds from the deceased partner's death were not assets of the partnership, but rather belonged to his estate. Furthermore, the court determined that the partnerships were not entitled to discount work in progress upon the retirement of a partner, and it taxed the costs of the appeal as between solicitor and client. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
The central legal issues before the court were multifaceted. They included whether a taking of accounts should have been ordered, whether the partnership was entitled to summary judgment, and whether the surviving partner was entitled to relief of money sums following the death of the other partner. Other issues included whether goodwill write-offs were correctly accounted for, if fee adjustments were appropriately provided for, and whether insurance proceeds from the deceased partner's death could fall within the partnership's assets. Additionally, the court considered whether the partnerships were entitled to discount work in progress upon the retirement of a partner and whether the costs of the appeal should be taxed as between solicitor and client.
In its reasoning, the court found that the deceased partner's estate was not entitled to the summary judgment sought. It held that the partnership's accounts were properly taken, and that the goodwill write-offs and fee adjustments were correctly accounted for. The court also ruled that the insurance proceeds from the deceased partner's death were not assets of the partnership, but rather belonged to his estate. Furthermore, the court determined that the partnerships were not entitled to discount work in progress upon the retirement of a partner, and it taxed the costs of the appeal as between solicitor and client. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.