Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd

Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was plainly wrong in his findings of fact regarding what was communicated to the respondent about the condition attached to the Transaction Bonus. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the respondent was made aware, prior to payment, that acceptance of the Transaction Bonus was conditional upon foregoing the Prescribed Sum. Acceptance of the bonus on those terms amounted to acceptance of the condition. The respondent was therefore not entitled to the Prescribed Sum, and the appeal was allowed.

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 Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Bonus Payments, Waiver of Contractual Rights, Acceptance by Conduct, Findings of Fact on Appeal
Contract Law Employment Law Variation of Contract Bonus Payments Waiver of Contractual Rights Acceptance by Conduct Findings of Fact on Appeal

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 Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to the Prescribed Sum under his employment contract after receiving a Transaction Bonus
  2. 2 Whether the acceptance of the Transaction Bonus was conditional upon foregoing the Prescribed Sum
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in findings of fact and law regarding the imposition and acceptance of conditions on the Transaction Bonus

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was plainly wrong in his findings of fact regarding what was communicated to the respondent about the condition attached to the Transaction Bonus. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the respondent was made aware, prior to payment, that acceptance of the Transaction Bonus was conditional upon foregoing the Prescribed Sum. Acceptance of the bonus on those terms amounted to acceptance of the condition. The respondent was therefore not entitled to the Prescribed Sum, and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant; respondent not entitled to the Prescribed Sum
  • No remission for retrial