Can a Claimant rely on a change in status from equity partner to non-equity partner as amounting to a 'continuing act' for the purposes of the time limit for bringing a complaint of discrimination?
Not in the circumstances of the case, held the EAT in Moore Stephens LLP v Parr.
The Claimant was an equity partner. The LLP Members' Agreement provided for discretion to extend the normal retirement age of 60 on terms to be determined. This discretion was exercised but on terms that the Claimant would cease to be an equity partner. Upon learning about a proposal to sell the Respondent company, the Claimant realised he was no longer entitled to a share of the profits and brought a claim for direct age discrimination.
The tribunal held that the Claimant's claim was in relation to a rule which amounted to a continuing act, so that his claim was in time.
The EAT allowed the Respondent's appeal, holding that the complaint was as to the one-off exercise of the discretion to continue the Claimant's membership of the LLP after his normal retirement date. The claim was therefore out of time.
Thanks to Tim Kenward of 7 Harrington Street Chambers for preparing this case summary.