Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Airport City, Manchester 0844 800 8346

Office 129
Manchester Business Park
3000 Aviator Way
Manchester M22 5TG

Send us a message
Our Offices

Court of Appeal rules that Whistleblowing Partner is not protected

3rd January, 2013

A ‘worker’ who acts as a ‘whistleblower’ – disclosing breaches of the law – receives statutory protection under the law if he or she suffers detrimental treatment as a result of having made the protected disclosure to the appropriate authorities.

In the recent case of Clyde and Co LLP v Bates Van Winkelhof, a partner in a law firm acted as a whistleblower, accusing a fellow partner of engaging in criminal activity including money laundering and bribery.

She claimed to have suffered a detriment and sought to rely on the legislation protecting workers, claiming that her disclosures were ‘protected disclosures’.  However, the Court of Appeal rejected her argument, concluding that for such disclosures to be protected by the legislation, there had to be ‘a hierarchical relationship whereby the worker is to some extent subordinate to the employer’.  This could not apply to an equity partner.  The facts of the case are complex as it involved a Tanzanian joint venture, but the principals are clear.

The Court found that the whistleblowing legislation does not protect equity partners.  This puts someone who becomes aware of criminal misdeeds on the part of their fellow partners in a difficult position, particularly as partners can be jointly and severally liable for losses to the partnership that result from the activities of their fellow partners.

The case does not look at the LLP Members’ Agreement in place at the time.  The right for the LLP to expel members without reason (so long as it is not discriminatory) is usually included.  There may have been other routes open to the whistleblower to challenge the offending behaviour; we do not know.  The LLP Agreement should create a duty of good faith for all members and also a duty to comply with legislation, in this case anti-bribery rules.

If you find yourself in such a position, contact Mark Briegal on 01244 405563 or at [email protected] for advice on what steps to take.

 

 

 

 

You might also be interested in...

Is there such a thing as a good divorce?

22nd November, 2018

Family Law Partner Sandy Edwards believes there is. Next week, from 26 to 30 November, Resolution, an organisation of 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals, will be promoting “Good Divorce Week” which will focus on how separating and divorcing couples can put their children’s needs first and limit the impact of conflict. The week falls during the government’s divorce... Read More »

Ethics Guidance – Transparency in Price and Service

16th November, 2018

It is reported that a quarter of all complaints dealt with by the Legal Ombudsman revolve around costs. Therefore to avoid complaints and confusion, it is important to be clear from the outset. The new Transparency Rules (which the SRA have now confirmed will come into effect on 6 December 2018) require that accurate and relevant information is... Read More »

Aaron & Partners Increases Recommendations in Leading Industry Guide, The Legal 500

5th November, 2018

Aaron & Partners LLP has once again seen improved rankings in The Legal 500 – a comprehensive guide... Read More »

Contact Us