Partnership

Partners having acted as trustees of lease of office premises statutory demand to recover expenses under indemnity from former partner former partner seeking to set off claim for moneys due from all partners no set off for lack of mutualityHurst v Bennett and others: CA (Lords Justices Peter Gibson, Arden and Sir Christopher Staughton): 16 February 2001The claimant applied to set aside a statutory demand served on him by former partners in a solicitors firm who had acted as trustees of a lease of the firms offices seeking money owed to them under an indemnity for expenses incurred.The claimant sought to set off the demand by a claim for monies due on the taking of accounts on dissolution of the partnership.

The application to set aside was dismissed.

The claimant appealed.The claimant in person; Stuart Adair (instructed by Thomas Eggar Church Adams & Co, Reigate) for the trustees.Held, dismissing the appeal, that an application to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand required mutuality of claims; that where the debt on which the statutory demand was based was one to which those making the demand alone were entitled, whereas the proposed cross-claim would be against all partners in the firm jointly, the claims lacked mutuality; and that, accordingly, the court would not exercise its powers under the insolvency rules to set aside a statutory demand made by ex-partners as trustees and owed to them personally on an application for set-off of moneys owed to the claimant by all partners jointly.