Christian v Cooper [2020] QSC 224 - podcast episode cover

Christian v Cooper [2020] QSC 224

Oct 28, 20208 min
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

"Are we partners, or what?"

___

P and D were former friends who worked together on software they used to place bets on horse-racing.

They shared the profits, in the form of gambling returns, in various proportions over time.

The relationship broke down. P sought to recover from D $870K he said he was entitled to as a partner.

A partnership is relevantly defined as a relationship between "persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit”: [105]

Noting the venture relied on "chance… as a predominant ingredient", the Court considered it was not a "business", and so not a partnership: [114]

However, if the venture was a business, it was not a partnership for a number of reasons: [115]

Those reasons included: (i) an important part of the software was used by D with no intention of sharing with any other, aside from the discrete way he shared it with P, (ii) P undertook work at D's request and was paid, (iii) there was no legal obligation for P or D to continue the work they were doing, (iv) there was a power imbalance between P and D such that D controlled access to software, servers, and the relevant bank account, and (v) despite saying he was unpaid, P actually received $428K over the venture: [116]

P's application failed: [129]

For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android