Ms Bates van Winklehof was a solicitor and partner in the Limited Liability Partnership of Clyde & Co LLP for about a year until she was expelled from the partnership in January 2011. Part of the reasons for this detrimental treatment, she argued, was because she had made protected disclosures regarding bribery in Tanzania.

The firm, in turn, argued she had no protections under the whistleblowing legislation because she was not a 'worker', as required by the legislation. The Supreme Court has now ruled that a fixed-share equity partner can be a worker and the case on its substantive merits should now proceed to tribunal.

The Court found that the appellant fell under this definition of worker:

“any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or bus iness undertaking carried on by the individual”.

Practical lessons from this decision:

Whistleblowing legislation allows wider categories of individuals protection against detriment that many other areas of employment law, where it is often the narrower definition of 'employee' that receives protection. Partners in LLPs are likely to be privy to the kind of sensitive information that might fall under the ambit of a protected disclosure and many perform their duties in the manner defined above by the definition of worker. LLPs would do well to consider the implications of this judgement and take legal advice.

http://bit.ly/1lQdxmP

The case is also available in summary form on YouTube:
http://bit.ly/1jDkieB