Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd & Anor

Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd & Anor

The announcement of a minimum bonus pool and subsequent assurances did not create enforceable contractual rights; the 19 December letters were subject to a material adverse change clause, and there are factual issues regarding the application of this clause that cannot be resolved summarily. The Defendants have not shown that the Claimants have no real prospect of success, so summary judgment is refused.

Parties
Claimant: The Parties named in Schedule A (Attrill Claimants); Claimant: Fahmi Anar and others (Anar Claimants); Defendant: Dresdner Kleinwort Limited; Defendant: Commerzbank AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (employment/contract) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; claims to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Discretionary Bonus, Implied Terms, Estoppel, Summary Judgment, Employment Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Discretionary Bonus Implied Terms Estoppel Summary Judgment 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Parties named in Schedule A (Attrill Claimants)

Claimant

Fahmi Anar and others (Anar Claimants)

Claimant

Dresdner Kleinwort Limited

Defendant

Commerzbank AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (employment/contract) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the announcement of a guaranteed bonus pool created enforceable contractual rights for employees
  2. 2 Whether the 19 December 2008 letters constituted binding promises to pay specified bonuses
  3. 3 Whether the introduction and application of the 'material adverse change' (MAC) clause was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The announcement of a minimum bonus pool and subsequent assurances did not create enforceable contractual rights; the 19 December letters were subject to a material adverse change clause, and there are factual issues regarding the application of this clause that cannot be resolved summarily. The Defendants have not shown that the Claimants have no real prospect of success, so summary judgment is refused.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; claims to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Defendants' application for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Claims to proceed to trial for determination of factual issues.