By Sackers*
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
*Sacker & Partners LLP (Sackers) is a commercial law firm specialising in advising pension schemes and pension scheme employers. Widely viewed as leaders in the field, Sackers advises around 500 occupational pension schemes, including more of the UK’s top 200 pension funds than any other law firm.
Contact: Georgina Stewart, Director of Business Development, Sackers
Tel 020 7615 9505, Email Georgina.stewart@sackers.com
Director of Business Development, Sackers
Tel 020 7615 9505
Email Georgina.stewart@sackers.com – See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
– See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
– See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
– See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
– See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
– See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf
Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLPs”) should heed the recent Supreme Court decision in the Clyde & Co v Bates van Winklehof case says Ferdinand Lovett, associate at Sackers, the UK’s leading law firm for pension scheme trustees and sponsors.
The Supreme Court ruling confirms that members of an LLP can be “workers” for the purposes of whistleblowing legislation but also has wider ramifications in terms of extending other legal protections that are afforded to workers to LLP members – including the right to be automatically enrolled into pension saving.
This is because the definition of “worker” in pensions automatic enrolment legislation has the same effect as the definition considered by the Supreme Court (although is not identical).
While LLPs may focus on the employment protections that the Clyde & Co decision appears to give LLP members, it is important for firms to think about the impact on their automatic enrolment plans i.e. whether LLP members need to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying pension scheme.
“We believe the safest course for LLPs to adopt is to assume that all members of LLPs are “workers” and that automatic enrolment requirements apply to them. However, the decision in the Clyde & Co case still leaves LLPs with unanswered questions such as how payments made to an LLP member by the LLP should be assessed for automatic enrolment purposes. Another grey area is whether a full equity member of an LLP, as opposed to a fixed share member, as Ms Bates van Winkelhof was, would constitute a worker.
“The effect of the Supreme Court decision on an equity partner in a traditional partnership, those which have not converted to LLP status, also remains somewhat unclear.
“We encourage LLPs to consider the impact of the Clyde & Co case and think carefully about whether it will affect the approach they have taken to date on auto-enrolling LLP members.”
– See more at: http://www.broadgatemainland.com/client-news/llps-must-heed-supreme-courts-decision-worker-status-2#sthash.SUqxtZW7.dpuf