Kang-Kem v Paine [2004] NSWSC 3 (Australia)

The case here is referred to as whether the business carries on by Kem Weichoreak Kang-Kem, plaintiff, and Marilyn Jean Paine, defendant, was carried on in common and whether the partnership exists. Judge Barrett J compared the evidence coming out of this case to s.1(1) of the Partnership Act 1892 that defines partnership as the relation which exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit and also compares to s.2 …

…defendant both had an interest in seeing the restaurants successfully operated. But the interest was not an interest in common. The defendant had an investment to protect. That was the source of her interest. It was the interest of an investor rather than a proprietor or business operator. She had the natural interest of one party to a de facto relationship in seeing the other party achieve personal fulfilment and success in his chosen field.