Cart 0
Login
Northern Ireland
Clyde & Co llp (1) John Morris (2) and Krista Bates Van Winkelhof [2012]
Published on: 28/09/2012
Issues Covered:
Whistleblowing (Protected Disclosures) Flexible Working
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background The appellant, a limited liability partnership, appealed against a decision that the respondent was a "worker" for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.230. The respondentwas an English qualified Solicitor who joined the UK firm Shadbolt and Co LLP (“Shadbolts”) in 2005. Her contract with Shadbolts stated that she was to be working on secondment in Tanzania with the law firm FK Law. In early 2009 Shadbolts terminated its joint venture agreement with FK Law and entered into a new agreement with a different Tanzanian law firm, Ako Law. The respondent became engaged with that firm on essentially the same basis as she had been with FK Law. The appellant was keen to recruit the respondent. She was offered a membership of the LLP as an equity member but conditional upon the firm taking on certain parts of Shadbolts business. The respondent duly became an equity member. The respondent worked principally but not exclusively in Tanzania. On 23 November 2010 she reported that a managing partner of Ako Law had been involved in money laundering. She was dismissed by Ako Law on 25 November and suspended by the appellant the following day. She was later expelled as a member. She brought a complaint against the firm alleging that she had suffered a number of detriments in particular being expelled as a member on the ground that she had made protect disclosure in respect of the senior partner of Ako Law. She also contended she had been subject to unlawful sex discrimination. 19The appellant claimed that the respondent was not a worker as defined by section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and so was not entitled to bring a whistle blowing claim. A partner in an 1890 Act partnership could not be an employee, and a partnership was not a separate legal entity. In order to be considered an employee, a partner must be deemed both an employee and employer, which was a legally unfeasible The appellant also claimed that the respondent could not bring either claim as she worked primarily out of the jurisdiction in Tanzania. http://bit.ly/VHdWf3

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 28/09/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →