Blog
Running the Marathon – lessons for professional and financial services partnerships
Andreas White
Just before Christmas, the High Court ruled on a dispute regarding the expulsion of a partner from one of the Big Four under the firm’s 2017 LLP Agreement (LLPA).
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.
Background
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:
- Stage 1 - notice of retirement.
- Stage 2 - where the partner “feels aggrieved”, the partner has the right to present their case at a Board meeting.
- Stage 3 – then if the partner is “still aggrieved”, the partner within seven days of the Board meeting may notify the Chairman that he or she wishes the Board to convene a special meeting of all the equity partners to review the Board’s decision.
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 unsuccessful legal challenge
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).
Implications for LLP firms and partners
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.
Further information
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the topics covered in this blog, please contact Andreas White or any member of the Employment Law team.
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.
New UK crypto regime takes a step closer
HM Treasury has published a draft statutory instrument which, when brought into force, will introduce a new regulatory regime for cryptoassets in the UK.
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.
Is the FCA’s name and shame policy now dead in the water?
On 6 February the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published its response to the latest iteration of the FCA’s proposals to “name and shame” firms under investigation by the regulator.
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.
Finfluencers – in the FCA’s sights
In March 2024 the FCA published a clear warning to those advertising trading and investments on social media about the risks of doing so, making it clear that it will “will take action against those touting financial products illegally.” Just two months later, in May 2024, the regulator announced that it had commenced criminal proceedings against a number of individuals for advertising foreign trading schemes on their social media platforms.
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.
Motor finance: FCA drives towards formal redress scheme
The FCA is conducting a review into whether motor finance customers were overcharged as a result of the widespread use of discretionary commission arrangements in the motor finance industry. It had expected to set out its next steps in light of this review in September 2024. However, it has announced that it will not now do so until May 2025.
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.
You may also be interested in:
Blog
Will there be cultural change in the financial and professional services?
Nick Ralph
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print