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, after the change. Paragraph 9(5) does not cover the situation although perhaps it should.’
Judges:
Sir John Donaldson
Citations:
[1974] ICR 347
Statutes:
Contracts of Employment Act 1972 Sch 1 Par 9
Cited by:
Applied – Wynne 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. . .
Obiter – Jeetle 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 followed – Allen and Son v Coventry EAT 1980
. .
Not Followed – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.197755