Finnegan v J & E Davy [2007] IEHC 18 (26 January 2007)

Finnegan v J & E Davy [2007] IEHC 18 (26 January 2007)

The deferred bonus scheme was unilaterally imposed without the plaintiff's consent, was not incorporated into his contract, and operated as an unlawful restraint of trade by making payment of earned bonuses conditional on not joining a competitor. The plaintiff did not acquiesce to the scheme, and the defendant failed to show any proprietary interest justifying the restraint. The plaintiff is entitled to payment of the deferred bonuses.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 18
Parties
Plaintiff: Eamon Finnegan; Defendant: J & E Davy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Bonus Entitlement, Restraint of Trade, Unilateral Contract Variation, Employment Terms, Deferred Compensation
Employment Law Contract Law Bonus Entitlement Restraint of Trade Unilateral Contract Variation Employment Terms Deferred Compensation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eamon Finnegan

Plaintiff

J & E Davy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unilateral imposition of deferred bonus payment terms constituted an unlawful restraint of trade
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of deferred bonuses after leaving employment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's bonus scheme terms were incorporated into the plaintiff's contract of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The deferred bonus scheme was unilaterally imposed without the plaintiff's consent, was not incorporated into his contract, and operated as an unlawful restraint of trade by making payment of earned bonuses conditional on not joining a competitor. The plaintiff did not acquiesce to the scheme, and the defendant failed to show any proprietary interest justifying the restraint. The plaintiff is entitled to payment of the deferred bonuses.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff the deferred bonus amounts for 1998 and 1999
  • Interest to be paid on the deferred sums