0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

be careful of your labels

28 June 2011

The decision in Publicis Consultants v O’Farrell is a stark warning to employers to be careful how they label termination payments in dismissal letters.

O’Farrell claimed breach of contract because Publicis’ dismissed her on four days’ notice instead of her three months’ contractual notice. O’Farrell was therefore entitled to claim damages for breach of contract, equivalent to her 3 months’ notice. However, her dismissal letter stated that she would receive a “ex gratia payment equivalent to three month’s salary”. Publicis claimed that the ex gratia payment was intended to compensate her for her period of notice and therefore should be offset against her notice pay. The EAT held the money was unambiguously advanced as an ex gratia payment and should not therefore be offset against her claim.

Care should be taken when labelling payments as ex gratia and it be made clear that the payment is intended to compensate the employee for their loss of notice to ensure it will be offset against any claim for notice pay.

related opinions

Furloughed employees entitled to full pay for redundancy purposes

The government has brought in new legislation to ensure that any employees who have been furloughed will have their statutory redundancy pay calculated based on their full-time wages as opposed their furloughed pay in the event that they are made redundant.

View blog

Return to work – all change or more of the same?

The Government has announced that its workplace guidance will change with effect from 1 August and its “work from home” message will be removed.

View blog

Will there be a return of employment tribunal fees?

The Government is reportedly considering the reinstatement of tribunal fees in respect of employment claims.

View blog

Redundancy: competitive interview processes

In this case, the Respondent’s appeal was unsuccessful. In the first instance, the decision that it unfairly dismissed various claimants following the closure of the school where they worked. The Claimants were unsuccessful in applying for substantially similar positions at a new school that opened at the same site. Read more here.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up