Bower v Stevens and Another: CA 6 Apr 2004

The claimant had been employed by the respondents, partners in a former firm of solicitors. On the retirement of one partner, the practice was continued by the sole remaining partner, who claimed that the dissolution broke the continuity of the employment so as to defeat her application for unfair dismissal.
Held: The dissolution of the partnership did not break the continuity of employment. ‘the purpose of section 218(5) is to protect an employee in the enjoyment of his statutory rights notwithstanding changes of personnel in the partnership or among the personal representatives or trustees who employ him. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 496, Times 24-May-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 218(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJeetle v Elster EAT 1985
The EAT considered the decision in Mansi: ‘Looked at as a whole, paragraph 17(5) [that is the paragraph then in force] is quite clearly intended to be a comprehensive provision to cover changes in the composition of those who comprise an ’employer’ . .
Not FollowedHarold Fielding Ltd v Mansi NIRC 1974
An employee had been employed by two partners and later by one of them.
Held: Mr Mansi could not bring himself within the provision because: ‘Where one of two partners leaves the partnership, there are no partners, but only a sole proprietor, . .
CitedWynne v Hair Control 1978
A sole proprietorship gave way to a partnership of which the previous sole proprietor was a member. The employee’s continuous employment was broken. . .
CitedAllen and Son v Coventry EAT 1980
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196083