Andrew Dixon v Globaldata PLC

Andrew Dixon v Globaldata PLC

The defendant did not in fact exercise its discretion under the share option plan to extend the claimant's options, but provided a clear assurance that the options would continue post-employment. The claimant reasonably relied on this assurance to his detriment by altering his employment plans and accepting...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Dixon; Defendant: GlobalData plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for contractual enforcement of share options dismissed; claim for proprietary estoppel succeeds; remedy to be determined at a further hearing.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Share Options, Employee Benefits, Authority of Company Officers, Remedies in Equity
Equity Employment Law Contract Law Company Law Proprietary Estoppel Share Options Employee Benefits Authority of Company Officers +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Dixon

Claimant

GlobalData plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant exercised its discretion under the share option plan to extend the claimant's options beyond termination of employment
  2. 2 Whether the CEO had actual or ostensible authority to exercise such discretion
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel arises from assurances given to the claimant regarding his share options

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not in fact exercise its discretion under the share option plan to extend the claimant's options, but provided a clear assurance that the options would continue post-employment. The claimant reasonably relied on this assurance to his detriment by altering his employment plans and accepting restrictive covenants. It is unconscionable for the defendant to renege on this assurance, and proprietary estoppel arises, entitling the claimant to a remedy to be determined.

Court Disposition

Claim for contractual enforcement of share options dismissed; claim for proprietary estoppel succeeds; remedy to be determined at a further hearing.

Orders

  • Parties to provide submissions on appropriate remedy for proprietary estoppel at a consequential hearing.