Glenn et Al v St. Hill

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 31 July 1973
• Neutral Citation: BB 1973 HC 11
• Docket Number: No.66 of 1973
• Date: 31 July 1973

High Court

Douglas, C.J.

No.66 of 1973

Glenn et al

and

St. Hill

Appearances

Mr. H.B. St John, Q.C., and Mr. P. Williams for the plaintiffs, with Messrs. R.G. Mandeville & Co.

Mr. J.M.G. Adams and Mr. G. Brancker for the defendant, with Messrs. Hutchinson and Banfield.

Contract - Partnership — Dissolution — Facts: The issue was whether the partnership formed by the two parties should be dissolved — Held: One partner was persistently and willfully committing breaches of the partnership agreement — He was guilty of such dishonesty in dealings with his business partners that they could not reasonably be asked to continue to do business in association with him.

Douglas, C.J.

1 These consolidated actions relate to a partnership business embarked on by the parties in May 1972 and to certain dealings by the defendant with a motorcar the property of the first plaintiff.

2 The plaintiffs came to Barbados in February 1972 and in May agreed with the defendant to carry on a partnership to engage in the business of the rental of motorcars. The defendant was already in that business and at the time of the discussions between the parties was in possession of four motorcars. The parties went to Canada in the middle of 1972 and had business cards printed in the name of Maple Leaf Rentals and bearing the names of the parties. They returned to the Island in July 1972 and the plaintiffs, who lived together, set up housekeeping at Jordan Road, Fitts Village, St. James. The defendant stayed with the plaintiffs at their house until November of that year.

3 In August 1972 the parties consulted Mr. Workman, a partner of Messrs. Yearwood and Boyce, solicitors. The plaintiffs had earlier acted through Mr. Workman in the purchase of the property at Jordan Road. In August Mr. Workman received instructions that Mr. St. Hill's name should be included in the conveyance and that the property was to be partnership property. These instructions were later withdrawn for the reason that none of the purchase money was being put up by the defendant.

4 In early October the parties again consulted Mr. Workman in regard to the drawing up of a partnership agreement for the car rental business. The capital was to be fifty thousand dollars. There were to be six motorcars and two mini-mokes. Profits were to be shared on the basis of half to the plaintiffs and the other half to the defendant. Mr. Workman says that the discussions were not amicable and that there were quarrels about amounts owing by the defendant, the plaintiffs claiming that he owed them twenty-three thousand dollars. The defendant on the other hand maintained that any money given to him was to be spent by him on the business or in buying various items for the plaintiffs.

5 Mr. Workman was told by the defendant that he owned the motor cars and that the value of his motor cars was going into the business and that twenty-five thousand dollars in cash was to go into the business from the first plaintiff and twenty-five thousand dollars in motor cars was to go in from the defendant. On this aspect of the matter, Mr. Workman had called on the parties to produce documents to show the value of the cars. Mr. Workman testified: -

“It was settled that $15,000 in cash had been put in by the plaintiffs and $10,000 more was to be drawn from them. He was to prove his value in the vehicles to show his share came to $25,000.”

6 The defendant never brought in the documents and Mr. Workman was never in a position to draw up the papers.

7 It is pleaded on behalf of the defendant that there was no consideration moving from the second plaintiff to support any agreement to admit him into partnership, and that any such agreement is unenforceable against the defendant. It is clear from the cheques exhibited in this case that the plaintiffs operated a joint account. From the evidence of Mr. Workman in regard to the purchase of the house in Jordan Road, the defendant knew that the second plaintiff was a fully participating member of the partnership business in his own right, and indeed on the defendant's own evidence it is shown that...