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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll