Partnership dissolution is often misunderstood, not only as to what it entails, but also as to what the outcomes may be. When partners seek to “weaponise” the dissolution of a partnership, as a means of taking a business forward, while leaving one of the partners behind/excluding him from further participation, further important considerations arise.
Losses resulting from expulsion following whistleblowing can be very substantial, and there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded.
But in some cases the expulsion of the whistleblower may:
In such circumstances it may be argued by the continuing LLP members that the chain of causation between the whistleblowing and the whistleblower’s loss brought about by the expulsion of the whistleblower has been broken, and that accordingly no recoverable loss arises.
The Court of Appeal decision earlier this year in Wilsons Solicitors & others v Roberts brings such scenarios sharply back into focus.
(This article was first published on the Kluwer Mediation Blog on 7 March 2017)
…the typical all-powerful and largely irreplaceable partner of yore has evolved to become a powerless, placeholder partner, keeping the chair warm for the next incumbent of his post. He is the counterpoint to, and the prey of, the predator partner.
This has radically altered how many partnership disputes, especially in the professions, tend to arise and are resolved.
On an appeal in the case of Dhillon v Sandhu (2014 WL 5411909) His Honour Judge Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) has affirmed the application of sanctions imposed by an unless order made by Chief Master Marsh in the course of the taking of a partnership account. The judgment gives guidance as…
“… 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…
Partnership dissolution FAQs: What is dissolution? In the partnership context, “dissolution” describes both an event and a process : Continue Reading
… 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…
“… the income of the firm may well diminish and/or partners may not account fully or at all for accrued WIP …” Unless there is an express agreement between partners permitting retirement, no partner can retire from a partnership at will. The only way to bring about termination of the relationship is for one or…
“… the conviction that a partnership will last forever in sickness or in health, for richer or poorer, may fade quickly …” As is well known, under certain Middle Eastern legal systems a husband can divorce his wife by uttering, “I divorce thee” three times in her presence. In contrast, in a partnership at will…
