‘Bakery group Greggs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have withdrawn their appeals over a High Court ruling that incorrect advice had been given under the ‘Primary Authority’ scheme.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th June 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The latest skirmish in a long-running row between two solicitors whose partnership dissolved in acrimony, has seen the High Court rule that the failure of one to mention to his creditors that he had been struck off was a “material irregularity”.’
Litigation Futures, 12th September 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.co.uk
‘The traditional law firm partnership structure is still dominant in the profession but the arrival of alternative business structures (ABS) has disrupted the status quo and may eventually become the norm in high-volume legal services, according to research.’
Legal Futures, 17th August 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against a decision that a top-100 regional law firm was not guilty of age discrimination against one of its partners, after he was not offered a new partnership when it restructured.’
Legal Futures, 29th July 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Alternative business structures (ABS) make up just 4% of all solicitors’ firms but contributed 11% of the profession’s turnover, research has revealed.’
Legal Futures, 27th April 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Partner payment notices issued by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners under paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 32 to the Finance Act 2014 were not unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
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
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision against one solicitor in favour of her former partner, after expressing surprise that the pair had no more than a verbal agreement made in the pub over a drink.’
Legal Futures, 12th June 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Under Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, freedom of association is protected. In Redfearn v UK it was held that the UK government had violated Mr Redfearn’s Art 11 right as the UK had not taken reasonable measures to protect employees such as him from dismissal on grounds of political affiliation. The government’s response, although following a suggestion of the court, could mean that the wider issues in Redfearn may yet have to be visited again.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 12th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Bishop v Golstein [2014] EWCA Civ 10, handed down on 5th February 2014, and the first instance decision of Christopher Nugee QC (now Nugee J) (reported at [2014] Ch 131) both contain useful guidance for partnership lawyers advising clients in connection with dissolution and remedies where the partnership relationship has irretrievably broken down. Whether a partnership can be dissolved by acceptance of arepudiatory breach is probably one of the most contentious issues in modern partnership law. The first instance decision is now the leading authority on this issue in two partners firms, whilst the Court of Appeal’s decision sets out some pointers. Amanda Eilledge explains.’
11 Stone Buildings, February 2014
Source: www.11sb.com
DV3 RS Ltd Partnership v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWCA Civ 907; [2013] WLR (D) 311
“Where a vendor contracted to sell a chargeable interest to a company and the company made a sub-sale to a partnership (of which the company was a member), both contracts being completed at the same time with sequential transfers, the partnership, as taxpayer, acquired a chargeable interest liable to stamp duty land tax.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal has ruled against a stamp duty land tax (SDLT) avoidance scheme involving the interaction of the sub-sale and partnership rules, overturning earlier decisions by the First Tier and Upper Tax Tribunals.”
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Only 9.4% of equity partners in law firms are women, despite equal numbers of men and women entering the profession.”
The Guardian, 18th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Employers looking to defend or reintroduce a mandatory retirement age will find ‘very little comfort’ in last week’s decision allowing a law firm to force a partner to retire at 65, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Golstein v Bishop [2013] EWHC 881 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 163
“The dissolution of a partnership could not be brought about by an accepted repudiation.”
WLR Daily, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Section 8(1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allowed for a promisor to give a third party an enforceable substantive right subject to a procedural condition on which the promisor might but need not insist. Section 8(2) of the Act allowed for a promisor to give a third party an enforceable procedural right which the third party might but need not exercise, since the right was unilateral.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 24th April 2013
“When can an agricultural landlord turf out his tenant farmer? The answer to this question has ebbed and flowed since the Second World War, but one element of the latest attempt by the Scottish Parliament to redress the balance in favour of tenants has just been declared incompatible with Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) as offending landlords’ rights to property. The Supreme Court has so ruled, upholding the Second Division of the Court of Session’s ruling in March 2012.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025