Tribunal overrules unfair dismissal claims for fixed-share partners
Fixed-share partners are unable to bring unfair dismissal claims, according to a recent ruling in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The tribunal this month upheld an earlier ruling that claimant Martin Tiffin, formerly of Bournemouth-based law firm Lester Aldridge, was classified as a partner of the firm and not an employee, and was therefore unable to claim unfair dismissal.
November 26, 2010 at 08:22 AM
2 minute read
Fixed-share partners are unable to bring unfair dismissal claims, according to a recent ruling in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
The tribunal this month upheld an earlier ruling that claimant Martin Tiffin, formerly of Bournemouth-based law firm Lester Aldridge, was classified as a partner of the firm and not an employee, and was therefore unable to claim unfair dismissal.
Tiffin had appealed a decision handed down by Southampton Employment Tribunal in December 2009, which found he had been a partner under the Partnership Act 1890 and not an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 when he was served a provisional dismissal notice in August 2008 and subsequently terminated from the firm.
Had Tiffin been found to be an employee, he would have been entitled to pursue unfair dismissal claims against Lester Aldridge.
Tiffin's counsel argued that there were discrepancies over the earnings and rights between Tiffin and a full equity partner. As a fixed-share partner Tiffin was paid an annual fixed share of profits of £55,000 together with five profit share points worth approximately £7,000. He was an authorised signatory on the partner's client and office bank account and required to make a £6,250 contribution to the limited liability partnership. He also had limited voting rights.
However, in his judgment, Mr Justice Silber said: "There is no statutory provision or authority, which states that for a person to be a partner, he or she has to have a certain minimum number or a certain minimum types of rights to vote or to participate in management decisions."
Commenting on the EAT ruling, William Wastie (pictured), a partner in Addleshaw Goddard's professional practices group, said: "It is very common in the legal world to have different tiers of partners. In order to obtain self-employed status a firm should provide that 'partners' get a slice of the profit, put in some capital and have some form of voting rights.
"In this case that is what the partner had, and so the employment appeal tribunal was right to uphold the original tribunal's ruling that a fixed-share partner is a partner of the firm rather than employee, and is therefore not eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
ENRC and SFO Reach Shock Settlement Over Media Leaks Allegations
Quinn Emanuel Rebuffs Call to Reveal Origins of 'Forged' Document in Deripaska Case
2 minute readIraq Telecom Wins $3B in Arbitral Awards against former Kurdish Partner
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250