MM Packaging (UK) Ltd v Philip Potter & Ors

MM Packaging (UK) Ltd v Philip Potter & Ors

The reference to '90 days of gross pay' in the settlement agreement, construed in the context of the claims being settled (including a statutory protective award), means 90 calendar days, not 90 working days. The payment should be calculated on the calendar method, consistent with the statutory scheme.

Parties
Appellant: MM Packaging (UK) Ltd; Respondent: Philip Potter & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed, claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Protective Awards, Redundancy, Settlement Agreement, Contract Interpretation
Employment Law Contract Law Protective Awards Redundancy Settlement Agreement Contract Interpretation

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

Parties

MM Packaging (UK) Ltd

Appellant

Philip Potter & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of '90 days of gross pay' in a settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether payment should be calculated on a per diem or calendar basis
  3. 3 Admissibility of negotiation evidence in contract interpretation

Ratio Decidendi

The reference to '90 days of gross pay' in the settlement agreement, construed in the context of the claims being settled (including a statutory protective award), means 90 calendar days, not 90 working days. The payment should be calculated on the calendar method, consistent with the statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed, claim dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The claim is dismissed.