Parties Named In Schedule A v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another: QBD 28 May 2010

The defendant merchant banks resisted two group claims for annual bonuses for 2008 made by the employee claimants. They now sought summary judgment against the claims. The employer had declared a guaranteed minimum bonus pool available to make the payments, and had written to each employee notifying them of the provisional individual amounts. The company said the sums remained discretionary.
Held: The announcement of the bonus pool did not create any contractual obligation to any particular employee. There was no stipulation as to any amount any individual might be paid, and nor would any calculation by the court be practicable. Though the claims based on the individual letters faced difficulties, there remained sufficient possibility that the arguments might succeed to allow the claims to go ahead; the conditions for review of the promises were calculable, and the review actually undertaken was subject to criticism.

Simon J
[2010] EWHC 1249 (QB)
England and Wales
CitedNigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others ChD 7-Mar-2007
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment.
Held: . .
CitedKhatri v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank Ba CA 23-Apr-2010
The claimant appealed against refusal of summary judgment on his claim for payment of a discretionary employment bonus by the defendant.
Held: The appeal succeeded and summary judgment was given. The contract properly construed did give rise . .
CitedPagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd ChD 1987
An agreement can be enforceable as an agreement on main terms only, with the detailed terms to be agreed later. Bingham J said: ‘The Court’s task is to review what the parties said and did and from that material to infer whether the parties’ . .
CitedEdmonds v Lawson, Pardoe, and Del Fabbro CA 10-Mar-2000
A contract of apprenticeship is synallagmatic. The master undertakes to educate and train the apprentice (or pupil) in the practical and other skills needed to practise a skilled trade (or learned profession) and the apprentice (or pupil) binds . .
CitedDoncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd and Others v The Bolton Pharmaceutical Company 100 Ltd CA 26-May-2006
Appeals were made against interlocutory injunctions for alleged trade mark infringement.
Held: The court should hesitate about making a final decision for summary judgment without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the . .
CitedSwain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
CitedE D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
CitedThe Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5) CA 11-Apr-2001
When looking at an application to strike out a claim, the normal ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof did not apply. It was the court’s task to assess whether, even if supplemented by evidence at trial, the claimant’s claim was bound to fail . .
CitedG Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd CA 1993
The court discussed how it should approach the task of establishing whether a contract had been made.
Steyn LJ said: ‘Before I turn to the facts it is important to consider briefly the approach to be adopted to the issue of contract formation . .
CitedJudge v Crown Leisure Ltd CA 21-Apr-2005
The claimant appealed against dismissal at the ET and EAT of his claim for constructive dismissal. The court considered whether the employer had made a promise to the employee.
Held: Smith LJ said: ‘In my view, with respect, [the claimant’s . .
CitedRTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had reached agreement in outline and sought to have the contract formalised, but went ahead anyway. They now disputed whether an agreement had been created and as to its terms if so.
Held: It was unrealistic to suggest that no . .
CitedStilk v Myrick KBD 16-Dec-1809
No Obligation Incurred without Consideration
The plaintiff agreed to sail with the defendant on a voyage being paid pounds 5.00 a month. Two crew deserted and the captain asked the remainder to do their work sharing the wages saved. The plaintiff sought the additional sum above the articled . .
CitedHorwood and Others v Land of Leather Ltd and Others ComC 18-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to claim for personal injuries against the defendant company, now in administration, and their insurers using the 1930 Act. The insurers said they were not liable to indemnify the company. The parties disputed the standing of an . .
CitedWilliams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd CA 23-Nov-1989
The defendant subcontracted some of its work under a building contract to the plaintiff at a price which left him in financial difficulty and there was a risk that the work would not be completed by the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to make . .
CitedLee and others v GEC Plessey Telecommunications 1993
The court was asked whether consideration had been given for a change in the employees’ terms and conditions.
Held: Where improvements in employee contracts are announced by an employer in the context of pay negotiations, the employees’ . .
CitedClark v Nomura International plc 2000
Mr Clark was dismissed on three months’ notice and, although he was paid his basic salary for that period and was still in employment at the date for payment of the annual bonus, he was not paid a bonus. He had earned substantial profits for the . .
CitedCantor Fitzgerald International v Horkulak CA 14-Oct-2004
The employee claimed under a bonus clause which ‘contained in a contract of employment in a high earning and competitive activity in which the payment of discretionary bonuses is part of the remuneration structure of employers.’
Held: The . .
CitedSteria Ltd and others v Hutchison and others CA 24-Nov-2006
Neuberger LJ observed that estoppels are relied on because of difficulties in establishing a contract; and, since unconscionability is the single factor that must be established for an estoppel and views on unconscionability may vary, it is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Contract

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.416607