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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll