Most disputes between partners of professional services firms are settled either through confidential negotiations or arbitration. A public resolution of the matter through a full hearing and reported judgment is a rare occurrence. A recent example of such a case involving an ex-partner of a law firm is a useful reminder that it is difficult to challenge profit share or bonus decisions as an irrational exercise of discretion.
What happened?
- The Claimant, Mr Tribe, was a partner of the law firm Elborne Mitchell LLP and its predecessor for over 25 years, although his relationship with the firm soured over his last few years there. He retired from the firm on 30 April 2016.
- Regarding the distribution of profits, the LLP Agreement (the “Agreement”) provided that the amount the equity partners would receive in respect of each accounting period was based on:
- a fixed amount of £75,000 each;
- a “discretionary fund” formed out of remaining available profits (comprising up to 40% of the whole distributable profit) which would be distributed on the basis of recommendations made by the Senior Partner and then settled by a resolution of the equity partners; and
- if the distributable fund was not allocated by a certain time it, together with any remainder of the profit, would be distributed based on lockstep points.
- The Claimant’s claims were in respect of his profit share allocation for his last two years at the firm (i.e. the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 financial years).
- The firm performed particularly well in those years, principally due to certain work brought in by a fixed-share partner. There were difficulties regarding the recovery of fees on some of the Claimant’s matters and the firm’s shipping practice (which he had run) ceased when he left. These factors were among those taken into account by the Senior Partner in formalising his profit share recommendations.
- In respect of 2014/2015, the Claimant strongly objected to the Senior Partner’s recommendation as to what the Claimant’s share of the distributable fund should be and threatened to bring proceedings. Following a debate at a partners’ meeting, a revised split was agreed and a resolution signed by the partners, including the Claimant (though he claimed he reserved his position).
- The following year, the Claimant again objected to the Senior Partner’s recommendation in lengthy correspondence and put forward an alternative proposal. However, he did not attend the partners’ meeting at which the proposals were discussed and voted on. The Senior Partner’s recommendations were adopted.
- The Claimant claimed that the Senior Partner’s recommendations and the subsequent resolutions passed by the equity partners were not done in good faith. He sought damages and a declaration of his rights under the Agreement.
Outcome & Comment
The Court held that the Senior Partner’s recommendations regarding the Claimant’s profit share were reasonable exercises of his discretion under the Agreement. The partners’ subsequent resolutions on the matter were also lawful.
In summary:
- In contracts under which a party is permitted to exercise discretion, there is an implied term that that party will not exercise that discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or irrational manner. That is a fact-specific question.
- In the context of an LLP, a decision-making power must be exercised in good faith and in what a member considers to be in the best interests of the firm. In making decisions, irrelevant matters should not be taken into account and relevant matters should not be ignored. Further, the decision should not be one that is outside the range of reasonable decisions in the circumstances.
- In this case, the discretion of the Senior Partner to make recommendations was a broad one, particularly because it involved a proposal to partners, rather than a decision. Partners would be able to challenge his proposals and adopt an alternative allocation if they disagreed with them.
- The ultimate decision of the partners should also meet the same test. That is, it should not be outside the range of reasonable decisions that might be made in the circumstances.
Since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2015 in Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd there has been considerable interest among employment and partnership lawyers in the scope for successful legal challenges to discretionary decisions by employers and LLP firms. As already seen in relation to bankers’ bonuses, this case suggests that proving that a discretionary decision on profit share allocation made by an LLP firm was irrational and unlawful will often be difficult, although every case will turn on its facts. It remains to be seen whether there is greater scope to challenge discretionary decisions made by firms in respect of partner exits, expulsions and compulsory retirements. On one view, the court should set the bar of what amounts to a rational and lawful decision at a higher level when it comes to partner exit procedures and expulsions, than in mere partner profit share disputes.
FURTHER INFORMATION
If you would like any further information or advice about the issues explored in this blog, please contact Andreas White, Özlem Mehmet or another member of our Employment team.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Andreas is a partner in our employment team. He has substantial litigation experience, with a particular focus on complex and high value employment and partnership disputes. Andreas has a particular interest in international and cross border employment law. He is a former president of the labour law commission of AIJA.
Özlem is a Professional Support Lawyer in our Employment Team. Before joining Kingsley Napley, Özlem was a Tutor and Team Leader at BPP University’s Law School, teaching on the Legal Practice Course. She taught the Employment Law, Business Law & Practice, Corporate Finance and Equity Finance modules of the course, as well as the skills modules of Interviewing & Advising and Professional Conduct & Regulation.
Latest blogs & news
Preparing for changes to non-disclosure agreements from 1 October 2025
In June the Ministry of Justice announced new legislation under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 which affects NDAs and confidentiality clauses.* Related guidance, published at the beginning of June, sets out the impact of this legislation on the enforceability of such agreements.
Managing digital nomads: What UK employers need to know
Digital nomadism - working remotely from outside the UK - is on the rise. Some estimates suggest 165,000 British citizens are living and working abroad as digital nomads for on average seven months of the year. But allowing staff to work overseas, even temporarily, can trigger a complex mix of immigration, tax, and employment law issues.
The Employment Rights Bill Tracker
The UK’s Employment Rights Bill, described as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation,” was unveiled in October 2024. In December, we provided an overview of its key provisions and their implications for both employers and employees.
The New Right to Neonatal Care Leave and Pay – What Employers Need to Know
From 6 April 2025, the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 introduces statutory rights for employees whose babies require neonatal care. With around 1 in 7 babies admitted to neonatal care after birth, the government estimates these rights will support 60,000 parents annually.
Making redundancy consultation count: a look at the principles behind the Court of Appeal decision in De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd
In a judgment in October 2024 in the case of De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1291, the Court of Appeal confirmed that general workforce consultations over redundancies of less than 20 employees in non-unionised workforces are not compulsory and that the fairness of a redundancy process must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
What does a recent Court of Appeal ruling on the case of a sacked Christian school worker mean for businesses?
The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the case of Higgs v Farmor’s School is a significant development in the law relating to religion and belief discrimination and managing conflicting views in the workplace.
Supporting staff when they need it most
Swiss-American psychiatrist, theorist of the five stages of grief, and pioneer of palliative care, Dr Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, once explained that you never “get over” losing a loved one; it forever forms a part of you. It is profoundly and irrevocably changing, and is as personal to you as your fingerprint.
Employment Rights Bill: how it could transform the UK
The UK’s new Employment Rights Bill, labelled as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation”, was unveiled in October 2024. The Bill represents a transformative shift in labour legislation, aimed at modernising employment practices and offering enhanced protections for employees.
SRA Guidance – internal investigations and guidance for in-house advisers
On 18 November 2024, the SRA published its updated and now finalised guidance on internal investigations.
Protected Conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act
The recent EAT Judgment in Gallagher v McKinnon’s Auto and Tyres Limited is a useful decision for employers, having upheld the employer’s position regarding the inadmissibility of evidence relating to what was said in some pre-termination negotiations.
Named respondents liable even if employer is also found to be liable
Miss C Baldwin (CB) was employed by Cleves School (the school) as a newly qualified
teacher (NQT) from September 2014 until CB’s resignation on March 18, 2015. Ms Miller
was designated CB’s mentor. Mr Hodges was the headteacher of the school.
Because of ill health, at the time of accepting the role CB had not completed her
postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE). CB had a number of absences during her
first term at the school.
Preventing sexual harassment in the workplace – how to prepare for the party season
I appreciate that the festive season is still a way off but, for some employers, the time is nigh for planning the staff Christmas party—booking the venue, sorting the entertainment, and mentally bracing for Chris Rae on repeat. For most, the next couple of months will be a time of merriment—of taking stock, being thankful for what you have, and planning for the year ahead. Unfortunately, for employment lawyers, we are likely to see an uplift in our workload as December approaches and Christmas party merriment crosses the line into misconduct. I don’t mean to be a killjoy, but it happens every year. Without fail.
Extra time
Waqar Shah and Andy Norris analyse the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Professional Game Match Officials Ltd, which has been referred back to the First-tier Tribunal.
Modern families and their rights at work – how we can help
For many of us, balancing the responsibilities we have at home and at work can be demanding. For modern families this balancing act can create very real challenges, which are different for each member of a family as they navigate their way through parenthood.
What Can Employers and Workers Expect From the Labour Government?
Our employment law experts Nikola Southern and Kirsty Churm take a look at what we know so far about the Government's main EMployment law proposals and what they might mean for employers and workers
100 Years of Employment Law in the UK and France
Inspired by Olympic fever in France and around the world this summer, the Anglo-French group has prepared comparative timelines of impactful employment laws in France and England since the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris.
France has been celebrating the return of the Jeux Olympiques to Paris after 100 years with a flamboyant opening ceremony along the Seine and an impressive medal hold. The Paralympic Games will conclude on Sunday and have seen more than 4,000 athletes competing in 549 medal events. It is only 12 years ago that Britain was itself embracing the excitement and spirit of the games at home in London.
In honour of the Games’ return to France, and with employment law reforms looming in the UK, we have prepared a timeline showing key dates on employment law across each side of the Channel.
The investigation blind spot (employee wellbeing)
Consider a common workplace investigation scenario: An allegation is made, either via a whistleblowing channel or through the raising of a grievance which raises the prospect of significant wrongdoing potentially having taken place in an organisation. The alleged wrongdoing could relate to sexual misconduct, financial fraud or any other kind of financial or non-financial misconduct which carries significant risk for the company (financial, reputational or both).
Engaging and terminating managing directors in Europe
In this summary will find information which is useful when planning to engage or terminate a managing director in different European countries.
The King’s Speech – roadmap for employment law reform
Practitioners have been waiting for the King’s Speech with interest to see which proposals previously made by the Labour Party would be mentioned and form the basis of legislation to be passed in the near future.
EHRC consultation: Updated guidance on sexual harassment
EHRC launches consultation on its updated technical guidance on sexual harassment and harassment at work.
You may also be interested in:
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print