Parham v F Parham Ltd. & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 181 (16 February 2006)

Parham v F Parham Ltd. & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 181 (16 February 2006)

Clause 7 of the agreement provides a clear default mechanism: in the absence of agreement, the salary is to be calculated by compounding a 10% annual increase on the original base salary of £10,000 from 1973, not by reference to the last agreed salary. The judge's construction is correct and the appellant's construction is unsupported by the clause's wording.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 181
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eric Ronald Parham; Defendant/appellant: F Parham Ltd; Former Employer/not Party to Appeal: Autoyachts Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of Contractual Clauses, Calculation of Damages, Lifetime Employment Agreements, Default Salary Provisions
Contract Law Employment Law Construction of Contractual Clauses Calculation of Damages Lifetime Employment Agreements Default Salary Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Ronald Parham

Claimant/respondent

F Parham Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Autoyachts Limited

Former Employer/not Party to Appeal

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of Clause 7 of the 1973 agreement regarding default salary calculation
  2. 2 Whether agreed salary in previous years affects default salary calculation in subsequent years

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 7 of the agreement provides a clear default mechanism: in the absence of agreement, the salary is to be calculated by compounding a 10% annual increase on the original base salary of £10,000 from 1973, not by reference to the last agreed salary. The judge's construction is correct and the appellant's construction is unsupported by the clause's wording.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal is dismissed
  • Order of HHJ Rose upheld