The Corrie Salon Feud

Some will remember the actress Sue Nicholls as either Miss Joan Greengross, Reginald Perrin’s secretary and fantasy lover, or as Nadia Popov in the excellent Rentaghost. However, all Corrie fans will know that she plays Audrey Roberts, who is currently in a battle with her grandson David Platt (Jack Shepherd) over ownership of a hair salon at No 2, Coronation Street.

Audrey subsequently suffered a heart attack, brought on in part by the stress of dealing with her feud with David over the ownership of what was formerly her hair salon. She had earlier signed over her interest in the salon to David, as she intended to elope with Lewis Archer (Nigel Havers) and to buy a hotel in Greece. She now wants the salon back.

How could Audrey have legally protected herself? This is a difficult question to answer, as obviously the salon story line has not included many legal facts to be able to determine what is going on.

It would seem that the freehold in 2, Coronation Street is held by David and Kylie Platt (Paula Lane), signed over by Audrey when she wished to show faith in David and his future (Audrey supported David’s marriage to Kylie, where many did not). If this is correct, then the first obvious point is that Audrey could have protected herself by granting David and Kylie a lease, rather than sell or transfer the freehold. The lease could have contained a number of restrictions concerning the business, such as the name of the property – that would have at least prevented Audrey having to tear down the “under new management” sign, for which she has been arrested for criminal damage. However, the main issue is, of course, the hairdressing business.

There is no information on the legal status of the salon business operating under the name “Audrey’s”. If Audrey Roberts operated as a sole trader, then she still has the business, but is simply locked out of the Coronation Street premises. The dispute then has to concentrate on how the freehold or other property interest was transferred by Audrey to David and Kylie. If this was freely signed over by Audrey, then she would appear to have little redress.

However, there is at least some suggestion that Audrey, David and Kylie were operating as a partnership. In the absence of any partnership agreement, this relationship must be analysed within the terms of the Partnership Act 1890. The Act states that a partnership exists merely when persons carry on “a business in common with a view of profit”. A partnership does not need any agreement or other formalities to exist. Ownership of relevant property is a factor in determining the existence of a partnership, but it is not the sole or conclusive factor. It can be argued that even though the freehold in the salon was signed over to David and Kylie, there was an implied licence for the partnership to continue operating out of No 2, so Audrey cannot be locked out. The 1890 Act does contain provisions concerning partnership property. It may be even be possible to argue that the freehold of No 2 is partnership property.

The purpose of the 1890 Act is to set out some default provisions for such partnerships, eg a legal presumption that all profits (and losses) are shared equally between the partners. The important point for Audrey is that under the 1890 Act, no partner can be expelled from the partnership by a majority of partners, unless those partners have an power expressly set out in an agreement to do so. Assuming that there is no partnership agreement between Audrey, David and Kylie, it would seem Audrey may have a claim under the 1890 Act. However, this would be complicated by her opening another salon in Mary Taylor’s motor home – a partner is not permitted under the Act to compete with the partnership. If a partner does set up a competing business, the partner must account for and pay over all profits made from the competing business.

It seems that Audrey’s original faith in David was misplaced. As with many family business arrangements, the lack of formal paperwork has come back to bite them. Sadly, it is another case of the saving of legal costs by not taking initial legal advice and having a proper partnership agreement (or shareholders’ agreement, if a limited company was involved) drafted proving to be a false economy.

[This was written for a newspaper, prior to Audrey’s heart attack. It got spiked, so you get to ‘enjoy’ it here instead.]
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Corrie Salon Feud

  1. Interesting. I think the transaction was also carried out in order to avoid or reduce inheritance tax on Audrey’s estate in the event that she lived another seven years (presumably her nice large house away from the Street along with other assets when combined with the salon would have taken her over the threshold). This might complicate the analysis as it wouldn’t, I think, work as an inheritance tax avoidance scheme if the transfer of the freehold of the property was hedged by being tied to Audrey’s continuing to have a stake as this would have reduced the value of the property. Or maybe not.

    However, might there not also be some potential solicitors’ conduct issues in relation to the advice that should have been offered to Audrey? Of course we don’t know what if any advice was offered and whether it was accepted or instructions were given counter to the advice.

  2. Well done to Andrew for his analysis of the story, it would have been great if the Corrie scriptwriters had been prepared to share more of the background with me when I they asked me to advise on the legal aspects of the storyline – as it was it was enough of a struggle to convince them that when David went to see his solicitors and ask them to write to Audrey on his behalf that the solicitor should charge £200 rather than £80 – surely hourly ratesare not that low in Manchester!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s