it's er  unfortunately the case that relations between the partners broke down and this led in due course to proceedings being commenced by the plaintiffs against the defendant in relation to the dissolution of the partners, those proceedings were commenced in nineteen eighty nine,, er in the high court chancery division, there were a number of issues raised in the litigation, one of the matters was a preliminary issue, er concerning the terms of the partnership and that came before er mr justice  on the eighteenth of february nineteen ninety one, whereby he found in favour effectively of the defendant on that preliminary issue er the plaintiffs it seems were then claiming that partnership, the partnership at will, but mr justice  held that they were part of the terms of the particular er partnership deed, so the defendants succeeded on that issue, the trial of the action then followed on the twentieth of march nineteen ninety one and er mr justice  made an order for dissolution of the partnership, he then give various directions for accountant enquiries concerning the partnership and he made orders for payments of costs, now the orders for costs were this, that effectively the  defendant was entitled to some costs of the preliminary issue and that the plaintiffs were entitled to costs of the er ma if i may put it this way, the main action, and there was then the provision for, set off for the defendant's costs against the costs ordered to be paid by the defendant, perfectly normal form of order.