In Good Company: How the Companies Act 2006 will affect the members of LLP\'s

July 14, 2007

This article was written for The Lawyer magazine in July 2007


Across the land corporate lawyers have been attending seminars, reading articles, updating precedents and generally getting ready for the upheavals the Companies Act 2006 will bring to their clients. Of course, as lawyers rarely practice in limited companies, most of these solicitors are unlikely to be overly concerned with how the new Act will impact their own working lives. Solicitors who are partners in traditional partnerships may even consider themselves almost immune from change, given that the Partnership Act has remained essentially as enacted for well over 100 years. But members of LLP's should, at the very least, be aware that the Companies Act 2006 will soon come to effect them personally.

In many ways LLP's are more akin to companies than partnerships. As well as sharing the all-important trait of a separate legal personality, LLP's and limited companies are both subject to provisions of the Companies Act 1985. In fact, the 1985 Act is core to the administration of LLPs, setting out various disclosure requirements, enabling disgruntled members of LLP's to raise claims of unfair prejudice, and imposing the requirement to publish accounts. It is telling that the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 contains a mere 19 sections, whereas 206 clauses of the Companies Act 1985 apply to LLP's.

Consultation and Timetable

Given that the Companies Act 1985 forms such a large proportion of LLP legislation, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has, of course, considered how the 1985 Act's replacement, the Companies Act 2006, should affect LLP's. Between February and May of this year, BERR consulted on the approach to take when applying the new Act to LLP's and set out the two basic options: either apply the 2006 Act only as far as necessary, or apply it as far as possible. These approaches can be summarised as 'if it ain't broke, don’t fix it' versus 'keep it simple, stupid'.

Both approaches have their pitfalls, but freezing the law for LLP's in its present state would cause sufficient problems that simply ignoring the 2006 Act is not a practical option. Companies House, for example, would have to maintain a 1985 Act style system for LLP's, whilst having simultaneously to maintain a 2006 Act regime for companies.

An approach currently being discussed is a full-blown change, which goes beyond applying those provisions of the 2006 Act which are the direct equivalent of the 1985 Act provisions which currently apply. The argument is simply that this keeps LLP's on a level playing field with limited liability companies, the other most popular commercial vehicle. Maintaining parity between LLP's and companies would also be a boon for legal advisors who deal with both types of entity.

Whichever route is taken, the government’s aim is to implement the 2006 Act for LLP's in October 2008, which ties in with the date on which many of its provisions will come into force for companies. Between now and then there will further consultation and draft regulations published, so there should be no nasty surprises for members of LLP's and it will be clear which route has been chosen.


What will the Companies Act 2006 mean for members of LLP's? The most visible changes will be administrative: merely concerning which forms need to be filed and when. A few will bring welcome changes for members: most would be happy if they no longer have to publish their home addresses on the Companies House website, alleviating a long-standing privacy concern. Updated accounting provisions, such as changes to the special accounting provisions for 'medium' sized LLP's, will be of no concern to some and a nuisance to others.

Perhaps the main concern for members of LLP's will be that applying the 2006 Act does not equate to a wholesale importation of company law concepts.  Most members of LLP's (and particularly lawyers) entered into this form of business structure because it seemed that the trade-offs were worth it to achieve limited liability. If concepts such as directors’ duties are imposed on members, with a consequent increase in the need to document the decision-making process, then it makes that trade-off less attractive and members of LLP's may feel they have been duped into moving away from a stable partnership model to an uncertain future.

There is good reason to fear that this is where the law will end up. BERR's consultation document gave directors' duties as an example of a concept which may be relevant to an LLP's "designated members". It seems rather unfair that the designated members of an LLP, whose functions are essentially administrative in nature, be lumbered with this burden when they may not necessarily be involved in the LLP’s management (participation in which is totally unrelated to a member’s status as a designated member). Assuming BERR realises this inequity, there is then a risk that directors' duties are applied to the members as a whole, which is surely an even worse outcome. With luck, BERR will drop the whole idea of applying the new directors’ duties provisions to LLP's at all.

There may also be some unexpected, but avoidable, consequences of the 1985 Act being replaced. For instance, those law firms with potentially litigious partners may find themselves on the receiving end of a section 994 application from a disgruntled partner, section 994 being the replacement for the existing unfair prejudice provisions under the 1985 Act. Unfair prejudice claims are usually excluded by agreement between the partners, but the agreement often achieves this by reference to the section number alone. Accounting for these kind of changes is straightforward, but can be easy to miss and costly to deal with if spotted too late.

The only certainty for members of LLP's is that the 2006 Act will bring with it some important changes. For lawyers, who over the same period are having to contend with regulatory shakeup that will see ownership rules being relaxed, the period of relative stability in the business structures of professional services firms will be coming to an all too abrupt end.

Related pages:

Partnership and LLPs more

icons Addthis Print Contact Register


tel: +44 (0) 20 7628 2000
10 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1AF
View map

For more information


Daniel Sutherland
Direct dial: +44 (0)20 7614 2624


  • Top Ranked Chambers UK 2014 - Leading Firm
  • Ranked in Chambers Europe 2013 - Leading Individual
  • Ranked in Chambers Global 2014 - Leading Firm
  • Legal 500 - Leading Firm
  • The Lawyer UK 200 - Listed Firm
  • The Law Society Excellence Awards 2012 - Shortlisted
  • Investors in People - Bronze