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.
On 13 May 2022, the FCA published a final refusing Alexander Jon Compliance Consulting Ltd.’s (“AJCC”) application for authorisation to provide regulatory hosting services. There is no specific definition of what a regulatory host is, but the FCA generally regards it as a commercial arrangement whereby an authorised Principal firm appoints and oversees a number of unconnected Appointed Representatives (“ARs”) which operate across a range of markets.
In recent weeks, we have all been witness to the significant consequences of Vladamir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – on a human and business level. Many financial institutions have shut-down their offices in Moscow with staff being let go or transferred, and there has also been a ripple effect over here in the City with an impact on banking jobs in London.
Moira Campbell and Jess Rice explain how employers can use flexibility as a way to attract and retain talent and promote workplace inclusivity.
The government made its long-awaited Freedom Day announcement on Monday 21 February 2022 and later the same day the Cabinet Office published its paper Living with Covid. As a result, the legal landscape for employers and employees changed significantly on 24 February 2022. The legal requirement to self-isolate following a positive test was removed. Self-isolation support payments went too. From 24 March, the special provisions for the payment of statutory sick pay for people with Covid-19 will be removed. So is this all good news for employers? Will this help those who have been charged with managing their workplaces through what remains of the pandemic? Does it mean freedom for them, or something less?
The default retirement age of 65 for employees is now only a distant memory, but mandatory retirement ages for LLP members remain common in professional services firms. In practice this can result in surprising and harsh outcomes.
Health secretary Sajid Javid has announced that the government will launch a consultation on removing vaccination as a condition of employment in health and all social care settings. The regulations requiring front line health workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19 (Coronavirus) as a condition of employment were due to come into force on 1 April 2022, which meant that unvaccinated staff had until 3 February 2022 to receive their first dose so that they could be fully vaccinated by April.
UK law has granted protection for those who raise concerns of potential wrongdoing in the workplace (whistleblowers) since 1999 through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Nick Ralph looks in detail at recent cases that have stemmed from the pandemic, including a refusal to attend work due to fear of contracting the virus.
One of the most topical issues regarding Covid-19 is that of vaccination and whether it should be mandatory.
Stories regarding big employers such as Citibank in the US mandating vaccination as a condition of employment (“no jab, no job”), the experience of great sports personalities such as Novak Djokovic and the decision of the Supreme Court in the US last week regarding laws mandating vaccination in the private sector, have all brought this issue into the spotlight.
So what is the legal position in the UK?
Richard Fox and Clodagh Hogan explain the questions people professionals should ask prior to conducting an inquiry into a dispute between employees
Investigations being conducted into workplace disputes have increased recently, possibly partly due to the rise in the number of sexual misconduct in the workplace allegations since the advent of the #MeToo movement.
Planning is key to workplace investigations and, if you are considering carrying out an investigation, ask yourself the following questions at the outset:
Much has been said about the proposed changes to the flexible working regime announced by the Government in its Consultation Paper on 23 September 2021.
It is the cliché that keeps on giving. Uncertainty remains the only certainty in this world of coronavirus and all its mutations.
At the time of writing, the number of cases in the UK of the new coronavirus variant, Omicron (technically, the B.1.1.529 variant), had reached 32. This is likely to increase given the current view among scientists that Omicron may be more infectious than the existing Delta variant of coronavirus and vaccinations less effective against it.
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.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility