Murray v Feros [2019] NSWSC 260

2020-05-10

“So we’re dissolving the partnership. What next?” ___ One group. 6 pharmacies. 3 are run by partnerships between 3 pharmacists. The 4th is run by a partnership between those 3 pharmacists, and one other. The 5th and 6th are run by companies owned by companies controlled by the 3 pharmacists. The parties were unable to work together: [18] Negotiations with a view to an exit lead nowhere: [19] Further, the threat of the financier – who had become aware of the disputes – calling in its loans...

“So we’re dissolving the partnership. What next?”

___

One group. 6 pharmacies.

3 are run by partnerships between 3 pharmacists. The 4th is run by a partnership between those 3 pharmacists, and one other. The 5th and 6th are run by companies owned by companies controlled by the 3 pharmacists.

The parties were unable to work together: [18] Negotiations with a view to an exit lead nowhere: [19]

Further, the threat of the financier – who had become aware of the disputes – calling in its loans loomed: [20]

The Court was satisfied all 6 businesses ought to be wound up on the just and equitable basis: [21], [29]

All parties agreed, in substance: [62]

Extensive consideration was given to the question of costs. Without ventilating rights and wrongs, the Ps had submitted the owners couldn’t work together and dissolution would be just and equitable: [58]

The Ds agreed.

As the Ps bore the cost of preparing the necessary evidence, the Court ordered that those costs were to borne from partnership or company assets as the case may be, with the Ds to bear their own: [61], [66]

Comments (3)