23 September 2016
Ham v Bell and others [2016] EWHC 1791 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 222 (Apr)
The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant’s claim that a farm belonging to the second and third defendants, who were his parents, had become an asset of a new partnership made between them. The court held that the fact that the farm had appeared in the relevant accounts as an asset of the partnership had been due to error. On the evidence, there had not been an agreement or understanding that the farm would become an asset of the new partnership.
