header-logo header-logo

25 January 2013 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Rich pickings

Ian Smith reviews a recent key employment law decision

Employment law is all about protecting the helpless and disadvantaged—right? Well, to adapt Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, “Up to a point, Lord Copper”. How about this for a festive pre-Christmas headline: “Banker, offered £7m on leaving employment, awarded £12m instead by our top court plus the right to sue for more, including damages for not being able to avoid as much tax on it as he was hoping to”? A real heart-cockles-warmer guaranteed to leave a nice glow in any reader. In a nutshell, that was the decision in Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63, [2012] All ER (D) 196 (Dec) handed down on 19 December. However, as is so often the case in employment law, what matters here in the longer term will be not the facts but the serious issues raised by them. Make no mistake, this is a genuinely important case on common law principles, even if there may be doubts (discussed below) as to how widespread its practical effects

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll