header-logo header-logo

11 January 2013 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7543 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The Winkelhof effect

istock_000020513108medium_2

A recent Court of Appeal decision helps clarify employment law’s territorial scope, says Charles Pigott

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Clyde & Co v Van Winkelhof [2012] EWCA Civ 1207 is best known for its ruling on the status of LLP members, which, it said, cannot be workers for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). However it also confirmed the employment tribunal’s decision that a LLP member was able to bring a claim for sex discrimination against a London-based legal firm, despite spending most of her time working in Tanzania.

Normally, an adverse ruling on worker status would rule out proceedings in the employment tribunal, but the claim was brought under the limited partnership provisions in s 45 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It arose from the circumstances in which Ms Van Winkelhof had been dismissed by a Tanzanian joint venture for which she did most of her work, which in turn led to her expulsion from Clyde & Co’s partnership. The LLP argued, as a

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll