Kennedy v Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein

Kennedy v Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein

The claimant failed to prove entitlement to a higher bonus for 1999 as the NOP calculation supported the sum paid. For 2000, the defendant's discretion in awarding the bonus was not exercised irrationally or perversely; profits could not be attributed solely to the claimant's trades, and the bonus reflected his actual contribution. Both claims fail.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Foss Kennedy; Defendant: Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Employment/contractual Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Bonus Entitlement, Discretionary Bonus, Implied Terms in Employment Contracts, Calculation of Net Operating Profit, Irrational or Perverse Exercise of Discretion
Employment Law Contract Law Bonus Entitlement Discretionary Bonus Implied Terms in Employment Contracts Calculation of Net Operating Profit Irrational or Perverse Exercise of Discretion

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Foss Kennedy

Claimant

Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/contractual Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was entitled to a higher bonus for 1999 based on 2% of Net Operating Profit (NOP)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant exercised its discretion irrationally or perversely in awarding the 2000 bonus
  3. 3 Whether the claimant generated profits justifying a higher bonus for 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove entitlement to a higher bonus for 1999 as the NOP calculation supported the sum paid. For 2000, the defendant's discretion in awarding the bonus was not exercised irrationally or perversely; profits could not be attributed solely to the claimant's trades, and the bonus reflected his actual contribution. Both claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claims for bonus payments for 1999 and 2000 are dismissed.