Kate Rogers and Samuel Lane appeared for the successful Appellants in the Court of Appeal.

Titanium Capital Investments Limited & Anor v Hughes and Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 976.

The case concerns a partnership founded during the COVID-19 pandemic to sell lateral flow tests. Following the dissolution of the partnership, both partners continued selling COVID-19 LFTs through various entities, with one such entity making a substantial profit of £17 million from selling LFTs to the Danish government.

After the dissolution of the partnership, both partners brought claims various claims against one another (and associated individuals and companies) in unlawful means conspiracy, knowing receipt, and dishonest assistance, as well under sections 29 and 42 of the Partnership 1890.

At first instance, following a fifteen-day trial, Richards J declared that one partner (Mr Hughes) had to account to his co-partner (Mr Manduca) for his post-dissolution profits, pursuant to s. 29 of the Partnership Act 1890. In turn, this finding formed the basis of his conclusion that Mr Hughes (and others) were liable in unlawful means conspiracy, and possibly liable in knowing receipt (a matter left over to a second trial). Richards J further held that Mr Manduca had an entitlement under s. 42 of the Partnership Act and dismissed Mr Hughes’ claims in unlawful means conspiracy and knowing receipt.

Following a four-day hearing in April 2026, the Court of Appeal, in a judgment handed down today, have allowed the appeal on each of full grounds bought by the Appellants. In particular, the majority (Snowden and Falk LJJs) allowed the appeal against Richards J’s declaration that Mr Hughes is liable to account under s. 29 of the Partnership Act, remitting this to be decided at first instance, with guidance as to how the section should be construed. Accordingly, they also remitted Mr Manduca’s claims in unlawful means conspiracy and knowing receipt, which are parasitic on liability under s. 29. Furthermore, the Court unanimously held that Mr Manduca had no entitlement under s. 42 of the Partnership Act, and that Richards J was wrong to dismiss Mr Hughes’ knowing receipt and conspiracy claims against Mr Manduca.

The Court of Appeal also noted Mr Manduca’s “very serious” breaches of his fiduciary duties.

The judgment contains authoritative guidance as to the proper approach to s. 29 of the Partnership Act, the meaning of the words “business connexion” in that section, and the scope of s. 42 of the Partnership Act.

Kate Rogers and Samuel Lane acted for the successful Appellants, led by Lexa Hilliard KC of Wilberforce Chambers. They were instructed by Sam Pinder and Kerrie Duffy of Gardner Leader LLP in relation to the Appeal. Chris Felton and Elinor Clifford are also members of the solicitor team acting on the main claim.

A copy of the judgment can be found here.