Search Mobile

collapse

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

Email address

Password

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

Forgotten your password?

collapseSign

Home

Insights

Resources

Blogs

Be careful of your labels

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

Sexual Harassment in the workplace – consequences of getting it wrong

A partner at a Magic Circle law firm has this week been ordered to pay £235,000 in fines and costs by a disciplinary tribunal, having been found guilty of breaching his professional obligations.

View blog

High Court finds against WASPI women

The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

View blog

When does misconduct by a professional amount to professional misconduct?

The Court of Appeal has considered what amounts to professional conduct for the purposes of the MHPS in the case of Idu –v- The East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust.
The allegations raised against the Appellant surgeon included, amongst others, refusals to follow management instructions and inappropriate (rude, uncivil, and, on occasions, aggressive) verbal and written communications.

View blog

Vegetarianism is not a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010

In its Judgment earlier this month, the Tribunal considered whether vegetarianism is capable of being a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

View blog

View all blogs