header-logo header-logo

A matter of definition?

09 March 2012 / Mark Whitcombe
Issue: 7504 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

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

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll