Bloodstock syndicate disputes tend to arise from the same fundamental problem: uncertainty over ownership, decision-making authority, and financial arrangements.

 

In Clipper BCS LLP & Anor v Foley & Anor [2025] IEHC 72, a High Court dispute over Sands of Mali, a Group 1 winning horse valued at approximately £500,000–£1,000,000, one party asserted sole ownership whilst the other claimed a 50 percent share, yet nothing was recorded in writing.

 

Justice Nolan’s judgment ordered the horse remain at Ballyhane Stud subject to monthly accounts and veterinary inspections, but crucially did not resolve the underlying ownership question. After a full High Court hearing with substantial cost and disruption, the fundamental issue remained unresolved.

 

The case exemplifies a recurring pattern: informal or oral arrangements regarding ownership and fee credits; no agreed mechanism for critical decisions (where the horse will stand, whether it can be moved or retired); and inadequate financial transparency. This creates the conditions for mistrust, litigation and breakdown in business relationships.

 

The typical issues in syndicate disputes

• Ambiguous Ownership Arrangements: One party believes they own a percentage stake: the other contests it. The arrangement was never documented.
• Undocumented Fee Credits: A party claims their stake was earned through crediting professional fees. The calculation method is never specified.
• Lack of Decision-Making Protocol– There is no agreement on who can decide where a horse will stand, whether it can be moved, retired, or sold.
• Financial Transparency– Without regular, itemised accounts, one party suspects the other is miscounting for stud fees and expenses.

 Prevention through planning

 

A comprehensive syndicate agreement must address:

• Ownership and Capital Contributions:  Explicit percentage; clear documentation of how fee credits are calculated.
• Financial Transparency: Specified frequency of account provision (quarterly or annual); itemised allocation of costs.
• Decision-Making Authority: Who decides where the horse stands; mechanism for breaking deadlock (majority vote, tiebreaker, or mandatory arbitration).
• Dispute Resolution: Tiered options: negotiation, mediation, then arbitration rather than court proceedings.
• Ownership Transfers and Exit Rights: Clear procedures for selling shares and rights of first refusal.
• Death and Injury Provisions: Insurance coverage and procedures if the horse dies or cannot breed.
• Partnership Termination: Clear procedures for dissolution and asset distribution.

The cost of proper legal documentation at the outset typically £2,000 – £5,000 is trivial compared to resolving disputes afterwards.

For Parkin and Foley, that upfront investment would have prevented destruction of a 20-year business and personal relationship combined with substantial legal and reputational costs.

 

How Muldoon Britton can help

• Early Advisory: If a relationship is breaking down, we advise quickly on your legal position, what evidence matters, whether urgent steps are needed, and realistic costs and timescales.
• Dispute Resolution: We represent clients in negotiation, mediation, or arbitration to find commercial solutions that preserve value and relationships where possible.
• Court Proceedings: If proceedings are unavoidable, we pursue or defend claims in the High Court, including injunctions, possession orders, and financial disputes.

 

Get in touch

 

Get in touch with our experienced team, who can assist you with all dispute resolution and legal action pertaining to bloodstock syndicate disputes. We recommend that you seek legal advice early.