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

Landmark judgment on fixed-share partner rights – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted February 10th, 2012 in law firms, limited liability partnerships, news, unfair dismissal by tracey

“Fixed-share partners of law firms are not employees and cannot claim employment rights before a tribunal, the Court of Appeal has ruled. However the ruling, in a case brought by Martin Tiffin against southern England law firm Lester Aldridge (LA), applies only when fixed-share partners enjoy some of the ‘obligations and responsibilities’ of full equity partnership.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 9th February 2012

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in law firms, law reports, limited liability partnerships, unfair dismissal by sally

Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP [2012] EWCA Civ 35; [2012] WLR (D) 19

“Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 required an assumption that the business of the limited liability partnership had been carried on by two or more of its members as partners and upon that assumption, required an inquiry as to whether or not the person whose status was in question would have been one of the partners. If the answer to that inquiry was that he would have been a partner then he could not have been an employee of the partnership; if the answer was that he would not have been a partner there would have to be further inquiry as to whether his relationship would have been that of an employee. It was implicit that the primary source material for the purpose of answering those questions would be the members’ agreement although that would not necessarily represent the totality of what might be looked at.”

WLR Daily, 1st February 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court of Appeal rules fixed share partners are not employees – Legal Week

Posted February 3rd, 2012 in law firms, limited liability partnerships, news, unfair dismissal by sally

“The Court of Appeal has upheld an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling that fixed share partners are not employees and, as such, are not eligible to claim for unfair dismissal.”

Full story

Legal Week, 2nd February 2012

Source: www.legalweek.com