Can a corporate body which is a member of an LLP claim to have suffered detriment because of the protected characteristic of an individual who happened to be its principal shareholder and member? Yes - and an Employment Judge’s affirmative answer to this question was correct, finds the EAT, and arguments that because only an individual could have a protected characteristic only an individual could raise a claim for discrimination under the GB Equality Act 2010 were rejected.

The lawyer claimant (Mr Abrams) set himself up as a limited company for tax purposes as he reached retirement providing services to his old firm of solicitors, until his LLP got worried about him providing services beyond what would have been his retirement age had he remained a normal partner. It was a strange set-up, in that the limited company became a member of the LLP instead of Mr Abrams, so it received what would have been his share of the profits from his LLP membership. 

When the other partners objected to the limited company being an LLP member after Mr Abrams reached the previously agreed retirement age for LLP partners, he and his limited company were joint claimants in tribunal. 

In refusing the appeal by the LLP, Langstaff J, President of the EAT, saw many examples of how a corporate body could suffer discrimination:

"However, the question is whether or not others - whether individual or corporate - may have the right to complain that they too have suffered detriment by reason of the way individuals have been treated. It seems to me that there are any number of examples that may be given of treatment which comes within the scope of this question that is plainly contrary to public policy. Examples might be a company being shunned commercially because it is seen to employ a Jewish or ethnic workforce; a company that loses a contract or suffers a detriment because of pursing an avowedly Roman Catholic ethic; one that suffered treatment because of its financial support for the Conservative Party or, say, for Islamic education; or one that was deliberately not favoured because it offered employment opportunities to those who had specific disabilities that were unattractive to some would-be contractors or because, let us suppose, of the openly gay stance of a chief executive. These examples may not necessarily be brought within Chapter 5, but all are examples of the way in which one person, natural or legal, may suffer because of the protected characteristic of another when public policy tends to the view that that is no proper basis for any such treatment."
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2015/0054_15_0506.html