header-logo header-logo

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

A matter of definition?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll