Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 407 (28 April 2016)

Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 407 (28 April 2016)

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in law or fact in concluding that the claimant did not accept any condition that the Transaction Bonus was in substitution for the Prescribed Sum, and that there was no effective variation or waiver of the claimant's contractual entitlement. The claimant was therefore entitled to the Prescribed Sum under his employment contract.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 407
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Richard Paul Elliston; Defendant/appellant: Glencore Services (UK) Ltd (formerly Xstrata Services (UK) Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for the claimant/respondent affirmed.
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Bonus Payments, Waiver of Contractual Rights, Employment Termination, Interpretation of Employment Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Variation of Contract Bonus Payments Waiver of Contractual Rights Employment Termination Interpretation of Employment Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Paul Elliston

Claimant/respondent

Glencore Services (UK) Ltd (formerly Xstrata Services (UK) Limited)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to the Prescribed Sum under his employment contract following termination after a Change of Control.
  2. 2 Whether acceptance of a non-contractual Transaction Bonus constituted a waiver or variation of the right to the Prescribed Sum.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged condition attached to the Transaction Bonus was effectively communicated and accepted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in law or fact in concluding that the claimant did not accept any condition that the Transaction Bonus was in substitution for the Prescribed Sum, and that there was no effective variation or waiver of the claimant's contractual entitlement. The claimant was therefore entitled to the Prescribed Sum under his employment contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for the claimant/respondent affirmed.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the Prescribed Sum of £418,774 to the respondent.
  • No variation or waiver of the respondent's contractual entitlement was established.