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’ in cases of partnership, personal representatives or trustees. We think there is no reason for taking the view that the legislature intended different considerations to apply to partners from those applying to personal representatives or trustees. It is only because the word ‘partner’ has the particular attribute of ‘sharing with another’ that the observations of Sir John Donaldson have point. It is permissible, where the context so allows, to construe words used in the plural as including the singular. The clear indication, we think, of sub-paragraph (5) is that any change in the partners (which might include, for example, the retirement of one of two partners) is not to break the continuity of the period of employment. Where the sub-paragraph says ‘shall count as a period of employment with the partners’ what is meant is ‘with the partners or any one of them who was previously the employer in his capacity of partner in the organisation, trade or business, as the case may be’. So we would have declined to follow the observations in Harold Fielding Ltd v Mansi  ICR 347.’ and ‘Where the sub-paragraph says ‘shall count as a period of employment with the partners’ what is meant is ‘with the partners or any one of them who was previously the employer in his capacity of partner in the organisation, trade or business, as the case may be.’
 ICR 389
England and Wales
Obiter – Harold 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, . .
Applied – Allen and Son v Coventry EAT 1980
Cited – 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.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.197757