Partnership | UK Bar

Serle Court is a pre-eminent set with a deep bench of barristers who act for law firms, financial services companies and other professional services clients in connection with a variety of partnership issues. Members also represent property developers and individual partners, and regularly handle matters concerning partnerships between high net worth individuals. The set is known for having developed strong arbitration and mediation practices, and for being home to barristers who appear in the leading cases of the day. Examples include the Supreme Court case of Grupo Mexico v Pearse Trust International Limited, which considers the rectification powers in the Companies Act for the first time. Other recent cases handled include Tribe v Elborne Mitchell, a matter concerning the profit share entitlement of a retired solicitor. Members at the set also acted for a number of former members of Bell Pottinger LLP defending claims for the recoupment of drawings following the collapse of the LLP.

Ten Old Square is highly regarded for its comprehensive coverage of partnership matters on both the contentious and non-contentious sides. Its members are instructed by solicitors' firms, property developers and financial services clients, among others, and also involve themselves with farming and medical partnership disputes. They regularly appear in court, in arbitration and in mediation, handling all the varied aspects of partnership law one could care to mention including disputes relating to restrictive covenants, team moves and lateral hires, and partner exits. Solicitors say: "The set is very responsive and operates at the highest level." One key case the set has handled recently is Knipe v Pain. The matter concerned approximately 100 properties in the UK, as well as numerous companies and LLPs, that were alleged to be owned by an 'overarching partnership' that operates estate agents, financial services firms and wealth management firms.

Littleton Chambers is a prominent employment set that has real strength in cases where partnership and employment issues overlap. Its members act for both individual partners as well as professional firms on a variety of matters, and are particular experts in partner departures and team moves. Other areas of specialism include cases involving allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct in partnerships. The past year has seen the team highly active in cross-border partnership litigation. Recent cases of note include Michael Wistow v White & Case LLP, a case concerning an unfair dismissal claim by an expelled equity partner.

Maitland Chambers offers outstanding capability in partnership disputes and partnership-related matters. The set is often instructed by law firms, financial services clients, property developers and family partnerships, among other clients. Its members are to be seen in some of the most high-profile cases in the market. Examples include Knipe v Paine, proceedings to unwind a wide-ranging partnership covering a well-known estate agency and various other businesses, and Tillman v Lloyds Bank & Better Capital LLP, a case involving the entrepreneur behind the Jaeger fashion house. The lawyers continue to be involved in complex, multi-jurisdictional cases such as Al-Subaihi v Al-Sanea, a matter involving complicated questions of Saudi partnership law as to the extent to which individual lawyers can be equated with their law firms.

XXIV Old Buildings is a set that offers a strong bench of partnership practitioners on both the contentious and non-contentious sides. Its members act for financial services clients, property developers and traditional family-owned partnership structures, among others, and have particular strength in partnership cases in offshore jurisdictions. Members here are noted for being "extremely effective, especially when it comes to the more difficult work." Key recent cases include Lawlor & Others v Medivet Group, where around 50 separate claims were made against Medivet, one of the largest veterinary services providers in the country. Each claimant was in partnership with one of the Medivet entities, and alleged that Medivet had been improperly charging their practices with costs Medivet had incurred in running its own business.