header-logo header-logo

15 July 2010 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7426 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Holding court

employment_1_4

Recent case law demonstrates that Westminster, not the courts, will be wielding the axe on pay-offs & bonuses, says Ian Smith

As part of the much discussed economic retrenchment, there has been talk of measures to curb excessive pay-outs in the public sector and bonuses in the private sector. One question for employment lawyers has been whether the courts might make any contribution here by taking a less generous view of individual rights under such schemes.

However, the two cases considered this month strongly suggest that this is not going to be the case, thus putting the ball firmly back into the government’s court if moves are to be made in such a direction. The first shows a much more restrictive approach by the Court of Appeal to the application of public law concepts such as ultra vires to agreements to pay off staff, and the second shows a continuation of the courts’ existing powers to ensure that employees receive the bonuses to which they are contractually entitled, strongly suggesting that any fundamental changes to bonus cultures may have to start with the contracts themselves,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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