USC UK Case No. [2014] UKSC 32
Clyde & Co LLP and another v Bates van Winklehof
Type
Case
Court
UK Supreme Court - UK Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Dubai International Financial Centre, England
Taxonomy
General Employment & Labour Law, Appeals, Limited Liability Partnership Accounts
Copyright
LexisNexis
Decision date
21 May 2014
Hearing/Judgment date
21 May 2014
Panel
Lord Neuberger P, Lady Hale DP, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath SCJJ
Catchwords
Employment – 'Worker' – Limited liability partnership – Appellant being member of limited liability partnership (LLP) – Appellant subsequently being expelled from LLP – Appellant bringing whistle blowing and sex discrimination claims before employment tribunal – Tribunal deciding appellant not entitled to claim protection given to whistleblowers as not falling within definition of 'worker' – Employment Appeal Tribunal allowing appellant's appeal on basis that appellant subordinate to LLP and therefore a worker – Court of Appeal allowing LLP's appeal on basis subsequent legislative provision modifying definition of worker – Whether provision at issue having meaning ascribed to it by Court of Appeal – Whether subordination characteristic of being a worker – Employment Rights Act 1996, s 230(3) – Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000, s 4(4).
Abstract
Employment - 'Worker'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant solicitor against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in which the Court of Appeal had decided that, applying s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, she was not a 'worker' within the meaning of s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was therefore not entitled to claim the protection of its whistle blowing provisions. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, deciding that s 4(4) of the 2000 Act did have the meaning ascribed to it by the Court of Appeal. This case is relevant to Article 17 of DIFC Law No. 5/2004.
Digest
The judgment is available at: [2014] UKSC 32