header-logo header-logo

11 December 2015 / Andrew Stafford KC , Carlos Pires
Issue: 7680 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Partners in crime

Andrew Stafford QC & Carlos Pires analyse dysfunctional partnerships

Life in a partnership is rarely plain sailing. Over time, tensions can emerge as strategies, personalities and remuneration reveal divergent aspirations and perspectives. For the aggrieved LLP member, life may have become more complicated following the High Court decision in Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP and others [2015] EWHC 2171 (Ch), [2015] All ER (D) 295.

The significance of the decision lies not in the factual scenario which generated the dispute, but in the judge’s clarification as to the role of the doctrine of repudiatory breach. Mr Justice Henderson ruled that the doctrine did not apply, leaving aggrieved or outgoing LLP members with less leverage and more restrictions than before.

The facts

The claimant—Mr Flanagan—was a member of Liontrust Investment Partners LLP, that ran a hedge fund. His participation was governed by the terms of an LLP agreement and a side letter. In August 2012 Liontrust purported to give him notice of compulsory retirement under the agreement and to place him on garden leave before

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll