Case 4105529/2016 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105529/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Aberdeen on May 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Shona Morrison v Represented by Ms M Gribbon Solicitor Aberdein Considine & Company — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105529/2016
- Decision date
- 17 June 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo MacLeod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105529/2016 Preliminary Hearing at Aberdeen on May 2017 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Shona Morrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 11 May 2017, Employment Judge M A Macleod considered whether Shona Morrison was an employee or worker of Aberdein Considine & Company when her salaried partnership ended on 30 September 2016. The claimant had joined the firm in 1989, became a salaried partner in 1995, and repeatedly signed updated Partnership Agreements. The agreement described salaried partners as having no interest in the capital, assets or goodwill of the firm, but entitled them to a share of profits and provided for benefits including holidays, sickness and maternity provisions, pension contributions and car expenses.
The tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Law where it conflicted with the claimant's account. It held that the written Partnership Agreement accurately described the relationship and was reflected in practice. The claimant had identified herself as a partner to the firm, clients and HMRC, accepted that the agreement was the basis of the relationship, had supervisory responsibilities within the conveyancing team, attended quarterly business meetings, was consulted on some partnership matters, and shared in the financial risks and rewards of the firm.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was a partner in a partnership, not an employee or worker. Her claims for unfair dismissal, a statutory redundancy payment and a claim under Regulation 5 of the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 therefore failed for want of jurisdiction and were dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the case would then proceed to a merits hearing on the claims that remained outstanding, and no monetary award was made at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction after the tribunal held that the claimant was a partner in a partnership, not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction after the tribunal held that the claimant was a partner, not an employee with entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction after the tribunal held that the claimant was a partner, not a worker for the purposes of Regulation 5. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.