James McKean wins appeal in partnership dispute: Razaq v Baig [2019] 11 WLUK 513


Reference:
[2019] 11 WLUK 513

Date:
28th November 2019

Court:
Chancery Division

Facts:

James McKean represented the successful Appellant in Razaq v Baig, an appeal against an injunction granted in a partnership dispute.

The Appellant and Respondent were former business partners whose relationship had collapsed. The Respondent, who was freeholder of the business premises, changed the locks and obtained an injunction to exclude the Appellant from the property.

The Appellant then procured a stay of the enforcement of that injunction, pending the outcome of the appeal.

On appeal, Roth J found the granting of the injunction to have been wrong in law. Following Lie v Mohile [2014] EWHC 3709 (Ch), the Appellant would at the very least have enjoyed a license to access the property for the purposes of winding up the business. The first instance judge had erred in ordering the Appellant’s exclusion from the premises.

Further, Roth J decided that it was appropriate for the Appellant to continue to occupy the premises until trial of the substantive dispute in two months. It was deemed to be in the interests of all for the business to continue to operate.


Judge:
Roth J

Comment:

This decision is a helpful reminder that partnership rights may outlive the partnership itself. Even if a partnership at will is terminated, it does not necessarily follow that a former partner can be excluded from premises, or that partnership chattels can be seized. The consequences of doing so can be severe – on the facts, the Respondent stood to be denied access to his own freehold property for nearly eleven months.

Associated Members:

Practice Areas:

© New Square Chambers Ltd : Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board.