The High Court refused David Hodgins’s application for an injunction to stop Duncan Hodgins and Elizabeth McKeever taking steps to dissolve their solicitors’ partnership, pending a full trial. The court did not decide whether the notice of dissolution was valid or whether the partnership had ended.
The dispute concerns David Hodgins & Co. Solicitors, whose partners signed an agreement in 2006 and an addendum in 2012. David Hodgins received a notice dated 28 February 2019 stating that the partnership would dissolve from 31 May. The notice was signed by Duncan Hodgins, David’s brother, and McKeever, Duncan’s wife.
David Hodgins argued that the agreement gave no general right to dissolve the partnership by notice and that steps taken under the notice could cause him loss. The defendants argued that the agreement referred to dissolution and that the Partnership Act 1890 allowed dissolution by notice, subject to any agreement between the partners.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 23 July 2019, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor said the central contractual and legal questions could only be determined after a full hearing of both sets of proceedings. He noted that the plaintiff’s submissions had force, but that the defendants had put forward a reasoned defence. The parties’ affidavit accounts were not always reconcilable without cross-examination.
The judge found that David Hodgins had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that damages would be inadequate if he succeeded at trial. He said the claim was ultimately commercial, and that although assessing any loss might be difficult and time-consuming, that did not make damages impossible to assess. The defendants had offered to undertake to pay damages if found liable.
The court also considered the growing differences between the partners and their likely effect on the firm’s clients and staff. It concluded that the balance of convenience and the least risk of injustice favoured refusing the injunction. The judge said the court could not compel two solicitors to continue working in partnership with another.
The ruling addressed only the interlocutory injunction application. It did not declare the notice valid, order dissolution, or resolve the underlying claims. The court gave directions for pleadings and information to be exchanged and said it would hear counsel about advancing the proceedings to a plenary trial. It also noted that, under section 38 of the 1890 Act, partners’ authority and obligations continue as necessary to wind up partnership affairs and complete unfinished transactions after dissolution.