09 March 2012 / Mark Whitcombe

Issue: 7504 / Categories: Features , Employment

printer

mail-detail

A matter of definition?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Mark Whitcombe unravels the rights of fixed share partners

The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35, [2012] All ER (D) 37 (Feb) clarifies the law governing the employment status of “fixed share” partners in limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and is equally relevant to cases involving conventional partnerships. It is well known that in order to bring claims of unfair dismissal or breach of contract in an employment tribunal the claimant must establish that he falls within the definition of “employee” in s 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). Tiffin is now the starting point for any consideration of the employment rights of LLP members, and is the first time that the Court of Appeal has considered s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA 2000).

The applicable law

Section 4(4) of LLPA 2000 is badly drafted: “A member of a limited liability partnership shall not be regarded for any purpose as employed by

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

A matter of definition?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Mark Whitcombe unravels the rights of fixed share partners

The recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35, [2012] All ER (D) 37 (Feb) clarifies the law governing the employment status of “fixed share” partners in limited liability partnerships (LLPs) and is equally relevant to cases involving conventional partnerships. It is well known that in order to bring claims of unfair dismissal or breach of contract in an employment tribunal the claimant must establish that he falls within the definition of “employee” in s 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). Tiffin is now the starting point for any consideration of the employment rights of LLP members, and is the first time that the Court of Appeal has considered s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA 2000).

The applicable law

Section 4(4) of LLPA 2000 is badly drafted: “A member of a limited liability partnership shall not be regarded for any purpose as employed by

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?

Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle

NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children

A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings

NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown

A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996

back-to-top-scroll