Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court finds that an agreement between a husband and his estranged wife prohibited him from terminating a management agreement affording exclusive management of the family hotel business to a company that their son was a majority shareholder in and sole director of.
Commercial dispute between man and his long estranged wife and their son – son is majority shareholder and sole director of the plaintiff company – Management Agreement afforded exclusive management of the Hotel to the plaintiff company – husband sought to resume control of the hotel and purported to terminate the Management Agreement – took possession and control of the hotel – plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction restoring occupation and control of the hotel – whether the legal team for the father and the Partnership could represent both of them – interpretation of the Management Agreement – Plaintiff company and wife accept that the husband/father is a partner – submitted that his freedom of action as partner is constrained by the management agreement – wife was concerned in 2016/2017 about debts arising from the Hotel and other business activities of her husband – her son’s continued management of the family hotel was very important to her – sought to seek in the terms of the agreement with her husband to constrain his freedom of action as to the affairs of the Partnership and the Hotel – representation issue resolved on consent – legal team agreed to come off record – principles of interpretation – meaning to be determined from consideration of the contract as a whole – clear purpose of term in the contract that freedom of action require prior consent of his wife – clear as a matter of interpretation that the decisions underlying his actions in ejecting the Plaintiff company clearly required prior written consent of his wife – agreement and constraints continued and did not change merely due to a change in the identity of their creditor – likely that arrangements would continue until altered by agreement - held as a matter only of interpretation of the agreement that the father was prohibited from terminating the Partnership Management Agreement with the Plaintiff company without the written consent of his wife.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.