Claim on family business

[Crabbitstick]

Family business with several equal partners.
One family member leaves business and receives payout based on terms of partnership.
Three years later this family member thinks they didn't not get enough money and is asking for a further payments (4x their original payment). If they receive this payment the business is no longer financially viable as the equity in the business is tied up in stock and not actual cash.
Relationships between partners and ex-partner have broken down due to this and suspected embezzlement by partner who left.
All communication now through solicitors.
Is a judge likely to entertain idea of further payment to ex-partner?

This question is either irrelevant, because the agreement you reached 3 years ago is properly recorded, or it will highlight the importance of getting things done properly and watertight legally first time round.

Which is it?

There was no written agreement 3 yrs ago. Partner who left took money but was quibbling amount. There has been back and forth with solicitors since that point. Then around 6 months ago they were given a 'final' letter but solicitor to say if we hear nothing further in X days then your claim is done. That period past and it is months later that they are re-opening claim.
They are questioning original partnership agreement now which was drawn up in the 70s.

No one can advise without seeing the partnership deed. You have literally taken advice from a solicitor over this dispute. What did they say? Usually on dissolution of a partnership the assets of the partnership are shared out. If that includes stock, sobeit. Is the only dispute that you’re prepared to pay the value of ¼ of the assets excluding stock, but none of the value of stock, which is x4 greater?

Unless the partnership agreement states to the contrary, the "value" of a business includes ALL it's assets, not just cash in the bank, so if it has a lot of stock, equipment, goodwill, etc., then all that has to be taken into account. It's up to the remaining partners to find ways of finding the cash to pay the outgoing partner, which usually includes borrowing etc if there isn't enough cash.

The agreement said that anyone leaving business prior to dissolution would be entitled to their share of profit from that year - not their share of net worth of business (e.g. All stock/assets).

They are now challenging this 3 yrs later - I think it should have been done at time they left business. They're now 'coming back for more' because they're skint.

To clarify this is about a family member and not me.

To clarify - if they were unhappy with initial payment shouldn't they have waited to resolve rather than accepting the amount they did when they left?

No one can tell you this, except the lawyers who handled it.

I'm no expert but a departing partner receiving only their share of the profit for that year doesn't seem like a fair deal to me if the business has assets