Neil William Bennett had submitted an Order of Justice against businesswoman Valerie Ruth Lincoln.
In the Royal Court last month the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, sitting with Jurats de Veulle and Bullen, concluded that the costs incurred in ‘this relatively trivial claim’ had exceeded ‘by far’ the amount at stake.
The history of the case goes back to 1995, when Mr Bennett went into business with Mrs Lincoln’s son, Wayne Lincoln, and opened a shop at 8 La Motte Street.
The business ran into debt and in 1999 Mr Lincoln left the Island and the company was declared en désastre, with Mrs Lincoln assuming her son’s liability for 50% of the overdraft.
Subsequently it was agreed to open a new shop at the same premises, called Blue Collar, with Mr Bennett receiving a wage and running the shop and Mrs Lincoln dealing with the paperwork and accounts.
No part of this agreement was put in writing, a circumstance described by the court as ‘sloppy and ill-defined’.
In September 2003 there was a ‘major rift’ and lawyers were consulted.
The business was wound down and closed in January 2004.
In the Order of Justice, Mr Bennett claimed that he and Mrs Lincoln were ‘50% partners’ in Blue Collar and that each was entitled to share the profits.
He also claimed that he did not take his holiday entitlement or ask for any pay rise, and that as a term of the agreement his wife was required to guarantee half of the overdraft facility.
In the judgment, the Bailiff said that although there was no doubt that Mr Bennett thought he was in partnership, this was not so according to law.
Sir Philip said: ‘In our judgment a partnership in Jersey law is a contractual relationship by which two or more persons oblige themselves to carry on business or to hold something in common with a view to an honest profit which they commit to share among themselves.
‘It must be remembered, however, that a partnership is a contract and, like all contracts, there must be a meeting of minds between the parties.
Having examined the business registration, Regulation of Undertakings records, bank accounts, Employment and Social Security details, and the one set of completed accounts, the Bailiff said the court had ‘no hesitation’ in concluding that in law there was no partnership.
‘There was no consent, no meeting of minds, as to the nature of the parties’ business relationship.
The court also dismissed the claim that because Mrs Lincoln had in the past referred to Mr Bennett as her ‘business partner’ she could not now be permitted to deny that relationship.
They further concluded that according to figures shown to them, Mr Bennett was not entitled to any further payment.
