Summary

The claimant failed to show that he was entitled to an interest in a property as a partner or otherwise.

Facts

The claimant (P) claimed a 25 per cent share of the profits realised as a result of the development and sale of a property on the basis that he was entitled to a 25 per cent interest in the property by virtue of a partnership or agreement or understanding between the parties or on the basis of unjust enrichment. The property had been acquired by the first defendant company (E) after an auction. The company was owned by the second defendant (G) and his wife. The third defendant (M) was a long standing friend of G. P's case was that he had a 25 per cent interest in the property because he, G and M were partners in respect of the purchase of the property; alternatively that there had been an agreement or understanding between P, G and M to acquire and develop the property and share the resulting profits as a joint enterprise; alternatively that E had been unjustly enriched as a result of the unpaid efforts of P in the acquisition and subsequent preservation of the property and in obtaining planning permission in respect of it which had resulted in a substantial increase in its value as a result of which he was entitled to expect a 25 per cent share in the resulting profits on sale. P contended that a partnership or joint enterprise agreement or arrangement with G and M had been reached in the course of a meeting between them. G and M denied that any such meeting took place and that any such arrangement was otherwise arrived at between them.

Held

1) The court accepted the evidence of G and M that there was no meeting such as P alleged and thus that no arrangement whether by way of partnership or otherwise between P, G and M was arrived at in the course of such a meeting. The claim that there was an arrangement, whether of partnership or otherwise, between P, G and M failed. (2) Since P could not show that he was entitled to an interest in the property as a partner or otherwise he could not demonstrate that E had been enriched unjustly, Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd & ors (1998) 2 WLR 475 applied. P's claim to a 25 per cent share in the property or in the shares of E failed. (3) G accepted that he was indebted to P in respect of certain loans and in respect of work done to the property and if the parties could not agree the amount the court would direct an inquiry.