header-logo header-logo

01 February 2018
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

LLP whistleblowing claim

Wilsons Solicitors have lost the latest stage of their legal fight to stop a former managing partner bringing a whistleblower claim.

The Court of Appeal held, in Wilsons v Roberts [2018] EWCA Civ 52, that Andrew Roberts can pursue his former firm for £3.4m in compensation.

Roberts, a member of Wilsons Solicitors LLP, was the managing partner. Following a dispute over his investigation of a complaint against the senior partner, the other members voted to remove Roberts from his post.

Roberts claimed the others had repudiated the Members’ Agreement, and that their conduct made his continued membership intolerable. The members denied this and asked him to return to work. He declined, and brought a claim for ‘compensation for detriment suffered by a worker as a result of the making of protected disclosures’, under the ‘whistleblowing’ legislation.

However, his claim was struck out on the basis it had no reasonable prospect of success due to a previous High Court decision on the doctrine of repudiatory breach in a dispute over LLP membership.

Delivering his judgment in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Singh said the employment tribunal judge ‘moved seamlessly from “the element of the claimant's claim that relates to the termination of his membership” to “the losses that flow from that termination”. The employment tribunal struck both of those elements of the claim out. In fact the second element did not necessarily fall along with the first’.

Mike Parker, managing partner of Wilsons Solicitors said: ‘The case is ongoing and we will continue to defend it vigorously. Mr Roberts was asked to reconsider his role as managing partner due to differences of opinion over the firm’s business plans and management styles.’

Issue: 7779 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll