Supreme Court urges rule committee to clarify status of law firm LLP acting for itself – Litigation Futures

‘The rule committee should look at clarifying whether a law firm LLP which acts for itself in legal proceedings is a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Supreme Court has said.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 1st March 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

High Court clarifies ability of local authorities to enter into limited liability partnerships – OUT-LAW.com

‘A local authority acted within its powers when it set up a limited liability partnership (LLP) to deliver a new housing and community scheme, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 9th February 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court hears judicial review challenge over £2bn development vehicle – Local Government Lawyer

‘The High Court has this week begun hearing a judicial review challenge to the London Borough of Haringey’s decision to establish the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV), which is said to be the largest local authority development vehicle of its kind.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 26th October 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Who Knows Where the Time Goes? The Recent Decision on Limitation and Contingent Loss in Osborne v. Follett Stock [2017] EWHC 1811 – 4 New Square

‘On Thursday 13 July 2017, following the trial of a preliminary issue of limitation, HH Judge Paul Matthews handed down judgment in Osborne v. (1) Follett Stock (a firm); (2) Follett Stock LLP.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 19th July 2017

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Report: ABSs punch well above their weight – Legal Futures

‘Alternative business structures (ABS) make up just 4% of all solicitors’ firms but contributed 11% of the profession’s turnover, research has revealed.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 27th April 2016

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Wellesley v Withers: A significant change in the analysis of remoteness of damage – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in causation, contracts, drafting, limited liability partnerships, negligence, news by sally

‘In Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 the Court of Appeal made an important change to the law of causation. From now onwards, the contractual approach causation shall apply instead of the tortious principles of remoteness in cases of concurrent liability. The effect of this case will be to materially change causation analyses in professional negligence matters, albeit the conclusion (as demonstrated in the Wellesley case itself) through the two analytical frameworks may well be identical.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Court of Appeal highlights ‘real prospect of success’ of accelerated payment notice judicial review – OUT-LAW.com

‘Investors in the Ingenious Media film partnership schemes have been granted the right to appeal the High Court’s dismissal of their challenge to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which had required up-front payment of disputed tax.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 3rd December 2015

Source: www.out-law.com

CA adds extra negligence finding and £375k damages on top of High Court’s £1.6m Withers ruling – Legal Futures

Posted November 13th, 2015 in damages, drafting, law firms, limited liability partnerships, negligence, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has made an additional finding of negligence against leading London law firm Withers over its drafting of an LLP agreement and increased the £1.6m in damages awarded in the High Court by a further £375,000.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 12th November 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

EAD Solicitors and Ors v Abrams: Equality for all “Persons?” – Cloisters

‘Chris Milsom considers the recent EAT Judgment which decides that a limited company can sue for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 .’

Full story

Cloisters, 29th September 2015

Source: www.cloisters.com

Does a Repudiatory Breach Discharge an LLP Member’s Agreement? – Littleton Chambers

Posted August 28th, 2015 in contracts, limited liability partnerships, news, retirement by sally

‘The recent Judgment of Mr. Justice Henderson in Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP and others [2015] EWHC 2171, 24th July 2015, has addressed the vexed question of whether the Common Law doctrine of repudiatory breach applies to LLP members’ agreements. It has long been settled law that the doctrine did not apply to traditional partnerships, Hurst v Bryk [2002] 1 AC 185 (HL), but the position under LLP agreements has been the subject of continuing debate. In particular it has been argued, by the author amongst others, that the doctrine applied and that the effect of a repudiatory breach was to enable a member to accept the breach and assert that the default provisions under the Limited Liabilities Partnership Act 2000 applied. In Liontrust Mr. Justice Henderson rejects that argument, save possibly in the case of a two member LLP.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 27th July 2015

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Williams v Law Society of England and Wales – WLR Daily

Williams v Law Society of England and Wales [2015] EWHC 2302 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 360

‘Where an intervention took place into a solicitor’s practice and a resolution was made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 for the vesting of moneys in connection with the solicitors current or former practice, it was moneys connected with that solicitor’s activities as a solicitor which vested in the Society.’

WLR Daily, 30th July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP and others – WLR Daily

Flanagan v Liontrust Investment Partners LLP and others [2015] EWHC 2171 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 338

‘The doctrine of repudiatory breach was excluded from multi-party agreements falling within the scope of section 5 of Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000.’

WLR Daily, 24th July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP (Public Concern at Work intervening) – WLR Daily

Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP (Public Concern at Work intervening) [2014] UKSC 32;  [2014] WLR (D)  222

‘An equity member of a limited liability partnership was a “worker” within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by the equity member against the partnership under section 47B of the Act, as inserted.’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Clyde & Co LLP and another (Respondents) v Bates van Winklehof (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Clyde & Co LLP and another (Respondents) v Bates van Winklehof (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 32 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 21st May 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

UK Supreme Court decision “opens door” for certain employment-related claims by members of partnerships, says expert – OUT-LAW.com

‘Professional services firms that operate as limited liability partnerships (LLPs) could be open to certain employment-related claims from aggrieved former members of the LLP following a recent UK Supreme Court decision, an expert has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

High Court untangles claim and counterclaim over law firm sale – Legal Futures

Posted February 17th, 2014 in insurance, law firms, limited liability partnerships, news by sally

‘The High Court has had to unpick the fall-out of the sale of a law firm, with the seller claiming unpaid purchase money and the buyer arguing that the failure to disclose potential legal action against the firm led to sharp increases in the cost of its indemnity insurance.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 17th February 2014

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

What are the Wider Implications of the Impending Tax Changes of Members of an LLP? – Littleton Chambers

‘The impending tax changes for the taxation of the members of LLP have been generating significant concerns, not only for our LLP clients but also Law firms themselves. The prospect of firms having a NIC liability, and the tax consequences for individual members themselves, have concentrated legal minds both internally and externally.’

Full story

Littleton Chambers, 4th February 2014

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others – WLR Daily

Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant (Earl of Seafield) and others [2014] UKSC 9; [2014] WLR (D) 64

‘A contracting party could be liable in negligence for a representation made in pre-contractual negotiations which induced the conclusion of the contract by someone other than the original representee.’

WLR Daily, 12th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Cramaso LLP (Appellant) v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others (Respondents) (Scotland) – Supreme Court

Cramaso LLP (Appellant) v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others (Respondents) (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 9 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 12th February 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Universal Project Management Services Ltd v Fort Gilkicker Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Universal Project Management Services Ltd v Fort Gilkicker Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 348 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 82

“English common law recognised multiple derivative actions before the coming into force of the Companies Act 2006 and they had survived the coming into force of that Act.”

WLR Daily, 26th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk