Sex Discrimination in Partnerships: Dave -v- Robinska

Background

The applicant and the respondent were partners in a two-partner medical practice. On a complaint by the applicant that, by dissolving the partnership when the applicant told her she was pregnant, the respondent had discriminated against her on the ground of her sex, an employment tribunal held, on a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, that, although the dissolution of the partnership was capable of being an expulsion from the partnership or other detriment within the meaning of section 11(1)(d)(ii) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, it was the act of an individual and not of the 'firm'", by reason of section 5 of the Partnership Act 1890.

The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the complaint on the ground section 11 did not apply.

The applicant appealed.

Appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held:

Section 5 of the Partnership Act 1890 regulated the relationship between the firm and third parties and did not apply to relations between the partners themselves. Section 11 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 gave the right to a single partner to bring proceedings against the partnership and proceedings against a partnership were properly constituted if brought against named partners.

Because partnerships of any size, even of only two partners, came within the ambit of section 11, it could make no difference that such proceedings were against the sole remaining partner where the partnership consisted of two persons. Accordingly, section 11 applied so that proceedings could be brought by the applicant against the person who was the other half of the partnership in that partner's own name.

The appeal was allowed.
This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.