The appellants appealed a trial judgment in favour of the respondent, arguing the trial judge unfairly set aside formal admissions and relied on unpleaded doctrines of frustration and lack of consensus ad idem.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not set aside formal admissions, but rather distinguished between agreeing to purchase shares and actually purchasing them.
While the trial judge erred in referencing the doctrine of frustration, his conclusion was supported by his finding of an implied term governing the respondent's resignation from the partnership before purchasing shares.
The appeal was dismissed.
