Philip Parr v MSR Partners LL (formerly Moore Stephens LLP)

Philip Parr v MSR Partners LL (formerly Moore Stephens LLP)

The application of Clause 29.2 and the exercise of discretion under Clause 29.4 in the claimant’s case was a one-off act (de-equitisation/demotion) with continuing consequences, not conduct extending over a period. Therefore, the claim was out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010.

Parties
Appellant: Philip Parr; 1st Respondent: MSR Partners LLP (formerly Moore Stephens LLP); 2nd Respondent: Simon Gallagher; 3rd Respondent: Paul Stockton; 4th Respondent: Sukhjinder Singh Aulak; 5th Respondent: Simon Baylis; 6th Respondent: Tim West; 7th Respondent: Richard Moore; 8th Respondent: Jeremy Willmont
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Time Limits for Claims, Employment Contracts, Partnership Law
Employment Law Equality Law Age Discrimination Time Limits for Claims Employment Contracts Partnership Law

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Parr

Appellant

MSR Partners LLP (formerly Moore Stephens LLP)

1st Respondent

Simon Gallagher

2nd Respondent

Paul Stockton

3rd Respondent

Sukhjinder Singh Aulak

4th Respondent

Simon Baylis

5th Respondent

Tim West

6th Respondent

Richard Moore

7th Respondent

Jeremy Willmont

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application of a retirement age clause with discretion to extend constitutes 'conduct extending over a period' under s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the claim was brought in time or was out of time as a result of a one-off act with continuing consequences

Ratio Decidendi

The application of Clause 29.2 and the exercise of discretion under Clause 29.4 in the claimant’s case was a one-off act (de-equitisation/demotion) with continuing consequences, not conduct extending over a period. Therefore, the claim was out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs