MacLeod v Mears Ltd [2014] EWHC 2191 (QB) (08 July 2014)

MacLeod v Mears Ltd [2014] EWHC 2191 (QB) (08 July 2014)

The court found that a contractually binding bonus agreement was made for the benefit of the teams managed by Mr Webb and Mr Macleod, not for them individually; the 75p in the pound allocation only applied until April 2008; the agreed terms only applied until December 2008; there was no bonus cap included in the agreement; and the agreement was not subsequently varied or superseded.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2191
Parties
Claimant: Duncan Macleod; Defendant: Mears Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Liability
Outcome
Liability determined; parties to address court further on implications for claims.
Legal Topics
Bonus Agreements, Employment Contract Variation, TUPE Regulations, Profit Sharing, Remuneration Disputes
Employment Law Contract Law Bonus Agreements Employment Contract Variation TUPE Regulations Profit Sharing Remuneration Disputes

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

Parties

Duncan Macleod

Claimant

Mears Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contractually binding bonus agreement was made
  2. 2 Whether the bonus was for teams or individuals
  3. 3 Duration and terms of the bonus agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a contractually binding bonus agreement was made for the benefit of the teams managed by Mr Webb and Mr Macleod, not for them individually; the 75p in the pound allocation only applied until April 2008; the agreed terms only applied until December 2008; there was no bonus cap included in the agreement; and the agreement was not subsequently varied or superseded.

Court Disposition

Liability determined; parties to address court further on implications for claims.