Running the Marathon – lessons for professional and financial services partnerships
The case Joseph v Deloitte NSE LLP concerned a challenge from David Joseph, a Swiss-based partner at Deloitte, to a decision by the firm to dismiss him.
The legal issue in dispute – whether the firm is obliged to convene a special meeting of the full partnership (consisting of some 1,700 equity partners) to consider the Claimant’s expulsion – is narrow, but the case is of broader interest to LLP firms and partners with important lessons for both.
On 23 July 2019 the Board of Deloitte served notice of retirement on the claimant, confirming his exit with effect from 31 January 2020. In the meantime he was placed on garden leave.
Under the LLPA the termination of a partner’s membership of the firm by the Board involves three stages:
In this case the Claimant was told by the Managing Partner that the next Board meeting was in Oslo “on 2 October… [and] the final Board decision following this meeting will be communicated to you by no later than 9 October”.
On 1 October the Claimant sent the Chairman a written summary of his case and indicated that on medical advice he would not attend the Board meeting in person. The Board met as planned next day and decided to uphold their earlier decision to terminate the Claimant’s partnership. However, this was not communicated to the Claimant, and so on 10 October – eight days after the Board meeting – he wrote to the Chairman asking when he would receive their decision and indicating that if the Board had not changed their decision then he would want them to convene a full partners meeting under stage 3 above.
In response the firm sought to explore with the Claimant what he hoped to achieve and any alternative way forward, but when it became clear that he was insisting on his right to call a special meeting of the full partnership to hear his case, Deloitte took the point that the Claimant’s request was out of time because it was made on the 8th day after the Board’s meeting.
The Claimant’s case was that his request for a full partners’ meeting to hear his appeal was not out of time on the proper interpretation of the LLPA. He argued that Deloitte’s suggestion that communication of the Board’s review decision was not necessary for time to run was in breach of clauses in the LLPA requiring the Board to communicate their decisions with reasons, and governing the duty of fairness and good faith owed by the partners to each other. He pointed out that without knowing the outcome of Board review, the partner cannot know if he is “still aggrieved” and so this precondition to the exercise of the right of appeal at stage 3 cannot exist. Having promised to communicate their decision to him within seven days, he argued that it was not just and equitable for the Board to be allowed to refuse his request for a full partners’ meeting.
The Court disagreed and held that the LLPA was “clear and unambiguous” in its provision for a seven day appeal deadline from the date of the Board meeting itself, rather than from communication of the decision. It emphasised that the LLPA is a carefully drafted legal document governing the relationship between “a sophisticated user group” of equity partners who could be expected to have entered into it “with their eyes open” (to its strict time limits).
This case is part of a broader trend in commercial cases towards strict contractual interpretation and an emphasis on the natural meaning of contracts. Individual LLP partners should be aware that legally they are in a very different position to employees. The legal theory is that all partners are of equal bargaining power when they enter into their partnership agreement (even if in reality this is far from true) and so they should be held strictly to the rules of the firm. This applies not only to time limits, but also in other areas (for example, enforcement of non-compete restrictive covenants).
This case is also a reminder to firms that it makes sense to keep their LLP agreements and governance arrangements under review, particularly as they expand. The right to appeal against expulsion at a special meeting of the full partnership might make sense for smaller firms, but will rarely be appropriate at larger ones. At too many firms, partner exit and expulsion mechanisms are impractical.
Lastly this case is a reminder of the legal costs when cases go to court. In a costs judgement the Court considered the parties’ legal costs (£300,000 for Deloitte and £138,000 for the partner) and ordered the partner to make an interim payment of £125,000 towards Deloitte’s costs, with the proportionality of the rest of Deloitte’s costs and the partner’s liability for them to be determined separately. This highlights the need for real care on partnership exits, to avoid costly litigation.
This article was first published in Accountancy Daily on 27 January 2020.
Richard Fox and Georgia Roberts explain why employers dealing with sexual misconduct claims should tread carefully when requiring an NDA to be included in a settlement agreement
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently launched a consultation on proposed amendments to its Listing Rules aimed at improving diversity and inclusion on company boards and executive committees. In particular, they are seeking feedback on proposals to require listed companies to publicly disclose annually whether they meet specific board diversity targets, including in relation to ethnicity, and to publish the composition of their boards and most senior level of executive management. To understand why such proposals are necessary, it is important to consider the current state of ethnic minority representation in UK leadership, why diversity at senior levels is so vitally important and what steps can employers take to improve diversity.
On 10 September 2021 the UK Government launched a Consultation on proposed changes to data protection law with the aim to “create a more pro-growth and pro-innovation data regime, whilst maintaining the UK’s world-leading data protection standards”. The proposals are designed to build on the UK’s existing data protection regime (contained in the General Data Protection Regulation (as it applies in the UK post-Brexit) (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018).
Progressive developments in immigration law have become a rare phenomenon, so the Home Office’s new policy – which halves the route to settlement for certain young people who have resided in the UK for more than half of their lives – is welcome news.
In 2012, as a recently elected MP, Kwasi Kwarteng co-authored “Britannia Unchained: Global Lessons for Growth and Properity”, a political pamphlet which championed risk-taking and innovation in the UK economy, and which ever since has led some to label him a fervent Brexiteer. Appointed as the Business Secretary in January 2021, only a few months later his department (BEIS) published one of the longest and most ambitious government White Papers in recent years.
Cate Maguire looks at how the Barder principle has been applied in cases involving 'known unknowns'
World Menopause Day was held on 18 October 2021. It is an opportunity to break the stigma and taboo that still exists around menopause and to encourage open dialogue about what is a natural and very significant transition in a woman’s life.
Coronavirus is having a serious impact on businesses and the global economy. Sadly, many businesses have been impacted to the extent that they have or will have to put cost-cutting measures in place. For some individuals this will result in their role being put at risk of redundancy.
In light of the announcement that an independent inquiry into the Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022, Kingsley Napley hosted a webinar last week on the theme of Preparing for Public Inquiries in conjunction with Blackstone Chambers and FTI Consulting. For anyone who missed this event, a recording is available here (LINK) and we have also prepared the summary below.
The Youth Mobility Scheme allows employers to access younger workers from countries such as India and Iceland for two years. With skills shortages afflicting critical sectors, now might be the time for the government to consider a youth visa agreement with the EU.
In revised guidance first published in July, the Government stated that it is no longer instructing people to work from home if they can. In line with that, many employers have planned and begun implementing a return to the workplace. However, as the latest figures and the Government’s recently published Autumn and Winter Plan seem to indicate, it is clear that the risk of contracting COVID-19 will continue to be a genuine and serious one for some time.
From being the centrepiece of England’s post-Covid recovery with ‘eat out to help out’, the hospitality sector is now struggling to rebuild after lockdowns, furlough and rising food prices. At the same time many restaurants, cafes and pubs are coming up against the hard realities of a post-Brexit immigration policy and discovering what it means for their business.
Earlier this year it was announced that the Government had plans to consult on changes to our flexible working regime. The Government’s Consultation Paper has now been published and illustrates the Government’s intentions regarding how flexible working rights will operate in future.
A recent case has highlighted a trend that that we have seen over recent years, with Employment Tribunals finding that the dismissal of a senior executive can be fair where there has been a breakdown in relations amongst a management team and one director / executive is considered to be more at fault (Moore v Phoenix Product Development Ltd EAT/0070/20). Also, the procedural requirements for such dismissals may be more limited, in this case, the fact that no right of appeal was offered did not render the dismissal unfair.
You may be surprised to learn that, without realising it, you may be a whistleblower. If you are a manager, you could easily come across a situation in which you are expected to manage (or even dismiss) a whistleblower, without anyone warning you of the dangers.
Employers have a duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of their staff and this includes those facing such allegations, says Bina Patel
In recent weeks, a number of commentators have predicted the “Great Resignation”—a mass exodus of employees leaving their jobs following the wake-up call the pandemic has afforded them. Microsoft research has indicated that almost half of the worldwide workforce is ready to resign this year, with just under 40% of UK and Irish workers saying they are ready to quit. Many have had cause to re-evaluate their careers during COVID and with lockdown restrictions set to ease further, people are considering their options. If the “Great Resignation” is upon us, there are a few things employers and employees should bear in mind.
“Freedom Day”, and what it actually means in practice, is not proving to be as straightforward as some had hoped (and arguably as the Government had initially led the business community to believe). Employers can be forgiven for feeling confused as to what is expected of them and what they should be doing in terms of bringing their employees back into the workplace. We are by no means at the end of the debate, but we summarise below, the latest developments
We have seen examples of people being ‘outed’ for posting racist comments online by individual bystanders who have been able to find their LinkedIn profiles and then contact relevant employers calling for the employee in question to lose their job. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. But what can an organisation do in these circumstances, if it wants to demonstrate that it stands against racism and discrimination?
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility