Nixon and others v Wood and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6361) 21 November 1987, 1055-1056(2)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 16 July 1987 Appeal by partners in a firm of solicitors from a decision refusing them an interlocutory injunction in their action against other partners. The dispute was within a partnership operating in three different offices. The partners in one of the offices decided to carry on the business of selling property and make preparations for this purpose including an extension of their office. They kept their intentions secret and did not inform their own partners of this project, who only became aware of them when they questioned the reasons for the extension. They did not approve and after some correspondence, commenced proceedings by writ seeking an injunction to restrain their colleagues from using the firm`s name and assets in connection with the property selling venture. The dissenting partners sought an interlocutory injunction. Leonard J. concluded that there was an issue to be tried in the action, as to whether the partners were doing anything wrong under the partnership d| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38468 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 10840-1001 |
CA 16 July 1987 Appeal by partners in a firm of solicitors from a decision refusing them an interlocutory injunction in their action against other partners. The dispute was within a partnership operating in three different offices. The partners in one of the offices decided to carry on the business of selling property and make preparations for this purpose including an extension of their office. They kept their intentions secret and did not inform their own partners of this project, who only became aware of them when they questioned the reasons for the extension. They did not approve and after some correspondence, commenced proceedings by writ seeking an injunction to restrain their colleagues from using the firm`s name and assets in connection with the property selling venture. The dissenting partners sought an interlocutory injunction. Leonard J. concluded that there was an issue to be tried in the action, as to whether the partners were doing anything wrong under the partnership d