Moore Stephens LLP and Others v Philip Parr

CourtEmployment Appeal Tribunal
JudgeMathew Gullick (Deputy Judge
SubjectNot landmark
Publication Date24 June 2021
Copyright 2021
Appeal No. UKEAT/0238/20/OO
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 23rd March 2021
Judgment Handed Down on 24th June 2021
Before
MATHEW GULLICK QC, DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
(SITTING ALONE)
(1) MOORE STEPHENS LLP
(2) SIMON GALLAGHER
(3) PAUL STOCKTON
(4) SUKHJINDER SINGH AULAK
(5) SIMON BAYLIS
(6) TIM WEST
(7) RICHARD MOORE
(8) JEREMY WILLMONT APPELLANTS
PHILIP PARR RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0238/20/OO
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR DANIEL STILITZ
(one of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Addleshaw Goddard LLP
60 Chiswell Street
London EC1Y 7AG
For the Respondent MR JONATHAN COHEN
(one of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
CM Murray LLP
First Floor
36-38 Cornhill
London EC3V 3NG
UKEAT/0238/20/OO
SUMMARY
JURISDICTIONAL / TIME POINTS; AGE DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant was an E quity Partner of the First Respondent, a firm of accountants. The LLP
Members’ Agreement provided for all Partners to have a normal retirement age of 60 but with
the First Respondent having discretion to extend beyond that time, on terms to be determined by
the Managing Partner, in the event of there being a business need.
The Claimant wished to stay on after his normal retirement date of 30th April 2018. In October
2017, the First Respondent decided that the Claimant should continue for two years beyond his
normal retirement date but only as an ordinary (i.e. non-equity) Partner. An agreement was
entered into providing for this change in the Claimant’s status, which took effect after 30 th April
2018.
In September 2018, the Claimant learned of proposals to sell the First Respondent’s business. In
December 2018, he was informed t hat he was not entitled, as a non-equity Partner, to a share in
the proceeds of any sale. The Claimant took legal advice and in January 2019 brought a claim for
direct age discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, alleging losses including in relation to the
proceeds of sale of the First Respondent’s business.
At a Preliminary Hearing, the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant’s claim was in
relation to a rule which had resulted in his demotion from Equity Partner to ordinary Partner and
was “conduct extending over a period” which was continuing at the date of presentation of the
claim, so that it had been brought within the s tatutory time limit set out in section 123 of the

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT