Introduction Last year’s decision of the Employment Tribunal in Scott v Walker Morris LLP sheds light on steps that LLPs and partnerships ought to be taking in relation to their retirement provisions and how they deal with partners or LLP members (all referred to in this article as “partners”) who do not wish to retire….
“… such a member cannot bring a whistleblowing claim (and would also be deprived of part-timer and equal pay remedies) …” In a previous post I commented on the case of Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that an LLP member was a “worker” within the meaning…
“… any partner or member who agrees to devote their full time and attention to the practice may well be a “worker” …” The case of Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has made new law, answering the question: can an equity member of an LLP be a…
“… if the answer to any of these questions is, “No,” there may be a problem …” Following the Supreme Court judgment in Seldon, how do professional practices quickly determine whether or not they should be taking advice on their current partner or LLP member retirement provisions, with a view to minimising the risk of…
“… Most UK professional practices operate a system of inherently discriminatory compulsory retirement of partners at a fixed age, regardless of ability or performance, on the assumption that this is legally justified …” The case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes is due to be heard by the Supreme Court on 17 January 2012…
… most conduct that would have been sufficient to justify a discrimination or sexual harassment claim may well be oppressive and unacceptable and cause anxiety, alarm or distress …It is quite a common occurrence these days to find at the first meeting with a client that he or she has a perfectly good discrimination claim…
