News and Events

Equity Partnership

  • Posted

Did the exercise of a discretion by which a partner ceased to be an equity partner when he hit the default retirement amount to a 'continuing act' for the purposes of the time limit for bringing a claim for discrimination?

No, held the Court of Appeal in Parr v Moore Stephens LLP.

The Claimant was an equity partner. The LLP Members' Agreement provided for the possible exercise of a discretion to extend the normal retirement age of 60. This discretion was exercised on the basis that the Claimant would cease to be an equity partner and would become an ordinary partner. This later meant that the Claimant was not entitled to a share of the proceeds from the sale of part of the business, which prompted him to bring a claim for direct age discrimination.

The EAT had allowed an appeal from a decision of the tribunal that the Claimant's claim was in relation to a rule which amounted to a continuing act, so his claim was in time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Claimant'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.