A fixed deal for fixed share partners

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Readers' comments (1)

  • Some people have been asking whether i would be prepared to take this to the SC. If you fund me then i would. If I was to go to the SC this would be my approach
    1. ss4(4) legal nonsense
    2. hypothetical assumption contrary to autoclenz
    3. ss1(5) Partnership law does not apply
    4. definition of a LLP different to that of a partnership. No “in common”
    5. CA in Zahid. Only essential ingredient of a partnership is the ability to bind one another. No such ability in a LLP hence reason for absence of “ in common” in the definition.
    6. Parliament did not intend to circumvent empolyment based case law/ common law tests
    7. Because s4(4) badly drafted courts should carry out both tests to check that come to same result. there is no control test when you consider whether a person falls within the statutory defintion of partner/partnership.
    8. Court to be alive to tokens of so called partnership status drafted into agreements to avoid NI and employment protection.
    9. Mutually exclusive concept based on the old definition of employee in the 1989 Tupe Regs. ERA 1996 definition wider.
    10. LJ Pill's judgement in one of my earlier applications( 1 April 2011)
    My prediction for 2012 is that the mutually exclusive concept will be dead with in 2 years!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (1)