We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Court of Appeal has held that an employee who had his
employment terminated on the basis that he would receive a payment
in lieu of notice remained entitled to the payment, even though his
employer had later discovered his gross misconduct was sufficient
to warrant summary dismissal.
Facts
Having confirmed that it would make a payment in lieu of notice,
the employer subsequently discovered Mr Cavenagh's gross
misconduct and decided not to honour its agreement to pay him in
lieu, arguing that it was discharged from its obligation to do so
in light of the misconduct that had been discovered.
The County Court dismissed Mr Cavenagh's claim for recovery of
his notice pay as a debt. It did so on the basis that the prior
gross misconduct gave the company a complete defence to the
claim.
The Court of Appeal overturned the County Court's decision and
held that the company owed the notice pay as a debt. Having
considered earlier decisions relevant to the issues, the Court held
that there was no authority that after-discovered misconduct
provides an employer with a defence to an action for payment of a
debt. Neither was there any contract law principle which
precluded Mr Cavenagh from recovering the debt owed to him.
Comment
This decision is a helpful warning to employers that, in the
absence of careful drafting, PILON clauses may entitle employees to
an unjust reward.
Employers should consider amending PILON clauses so that they
provide that the obligation to make a PILON will not apply where
facts come to light before payment which, had they been know
beforehand, would have entitled the employer to dismiss without
notice.
In an earlier Court of Appeal decision in Boston Deep Sea
Fishing v Ansel, it was held that an employer could justify an
otherwise wrongful summary dismissal by reliance on facts not known
at the time it dismissed an employee. The court in this case
rejected the argument that this meant an employer could rely on
information discovered after a lawful termination in order to avoid
payment of an accrued debt.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Employers who fail to inform and consult employees in connection with a TUPE transfer may have to pay a penalty of 13 weeks’ gross pay to all affected employees.
Many employers will have experienced the situation whereby a senior employee leaves the company and shortly afterwards begins to solicit key clients in breach of his/her restrictive covenants.
Failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures will usually increase the risk of a dismissal being found to be procedurally unfair and can result in increased compensation being payable to a dismissed employee.
BIS has published an updated indicative timetable of the planned key dates for the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and the introduction of financial penalties for employers who breach workers rights will now not be in October 2013.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Termination Without Tears (Video Content)
