Clyde & Co LLP and another v Bates van Winkelhof

Clyde & Co LLP and another v Bates van Winkelhof

A member of a Limited Liability Partnership who undertakes to perform work personally for the LLP and is not in business on her own account with the LLP as a client or customer is a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 does not preclude such status. Subordination is not a necessary element. The appellant is entitled to claim whistle-blower protection under the 1996 Act.

Parties
Appellant: Bates van Winkelhof; Respondents: Clyde & Co LLP and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Definition of Worker, Limited Liability Partnerships, Whistle Blowing Protection, Statutory Interpretation, Employment Rights Act 1996, Public Interest Disclosure, Subordination in Employment, Human Rights Act 1998
Employment Law Partnership Law Human Rights Definition of Worker Limited Liability Partnerships Whistle Blowing Protection Statutory Interpretation Employment Rights Act 1996 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bates van Winkelhof

Appellant

Clyde & Co LLP and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a member of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) can be a 'worker' under section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 excludes LLP members from 'worker' status
  3. 3 Whether subordination is a necessary element of 'worker' status

Ratio Decidendi

A member of a Limited Liability Partnership who undertakes to perform work personally for the LLP and is not in business on her own account with the LLP as a client or customer is a 'worker' within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 does not preclude such status. Subordination is not a necessary element. The appellant is entitled to claim whistle-blower protection under the 1996 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted to the employment tribunal to determine the appellant's whistle-blowing and sex discrimination claims.