header-logo header-logo

29 January 2015
Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Compensation excludes dividends

Company directors who save on tax by accepting a modest salary and remuneration by dividend could be in for a nasty shock if they ever come to claim compensation.

A company director had his compensation capped to £9,254 annual earnings with dividend income entirely excluded from consideration, in a landmark decision at Manchester Employment Tribunal. If the income from the dividend had been included, he would have been awarded £74,000 in compensation.

In Sheridan v GTECH Solutions Ltd, the tribunal refused to acknowledge the dividend of the director/shareholder. Instead, it calculated a cap of one year’s earning, in line with s 124(1ZA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by reference only to the claimants PAYE salary of £756 per month.

Ian Procter, solicitor advocate and partner at Green Solicitors, who represented the employer respondent, says: “This is a landmark decision and although coming at first instance will be very persuasive to other tribunals due to its careful consideration of the law and extensive and detailed judgment.

“It is thought to be the first time this issue has been raised before an employment tribunal following the introduction of the cap recently and the tribunal accepted my submission, that ‘for the purpose of calculating the statutory cap earnings did not include dividends but only PAYE earnings, as only they were contractually due under the contract of employment. Further a dividend arises as a result of an individual’s status as shareholder and is not payable by the company as of right or as a result of employment’.”

Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll