The High Court has dismissed an application by solicitor David Synnott to appoint a receiver over the assets of the dissolved Lawline Solicitors partnership, saying the proposed appointment was not an appropriate way to value and distribute the partnership’s assets at this interlocutory stage.
In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2011, Miss Justice Laffoy said the disputed facts between Synnott and his former equal partner, Caoimhe Haughey, could not be resolved on the application. She made no finding on whether either party’s allegations were well founded.
The partners had operated the practice for just over eight years from Christchurch Hall in Dublin 8. Haughey gave notice in August 2011 that the partnership would dissolve on 30 September. Synnott disputed that the notice was effective, relying on a written partnership agreement whose existence Haughey denied. The judge said that dispute remained for resolution at trial.
The application sought a receiver and manager with powers that included realising assets, dealing with debts and creditors, and winding up the firm’s affairs. Synnott alleged that Haughey had appropriated partnership assets, including files, work in progress, premises and equipment. Haughey denied the allegations and argued that a receiver would be disproportionately costly. Those claims were not decided in this application.
The court noted that former clients had been asked to choose which partner would continue to act for them, and 95% chose Haughey. The judge said the present dispute was about the partners’ respective entitlements to partnership assets, not who would act for those clients.
Laffoy J said the evidence showed Synnott was seeking definitive valuations and distribution through his proposed receiver, rather than only preserving the assets pending trial. The court could not at this stage give an appointed accountant power to determine fees due on each file in a way that would bind Haughey against her will or to distribute assets based on that valuation.
The judge said the partners could agree to use accountants, arbitration or another valuation process, with a default mechanism if needed. If they could not agree, the court would address valuation after hearing the action and might direct accounts or inquiries. She also left open whether the dissolved partnership had an enforceable entitlement to fees for work done before 30 September, and how any such entitlement should be discharged.
The court dismissed the receiver application. Laffoy J said she would hear further submissions on how the proceedings should continue.