• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

When a two letter word costs nearly £4 million

26th February 2013/in News /by Nicola Brown

This is the apparently simple issue which was considered by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Société Générale, London v Geys [2012].  The question for the Supreme Court was whether a fundamental breach of contract by a party, in this case the employer, needed to be accepted by the employee in order for the contract to be terminated.

Mr Geys was employed as the Managing Director, European Fixed Income Sales, Financial Institutions at Société Générale.  His contract could be terminated by either party giving 3 months’ notice, or by the bank “at any time with immediate effect by making a payment to him in lieu of notice (or, if notice had already been given, the balance of his notice period)”.

On 29 November 2007, Mr Geys was told that the bank had decided to terminate his employment with immediate effect. He was given a letter confirming this, allowed to clear his desk and was then escorted from the building. Mr Geys’ solicitors then wrote to the bank to ask for further information about the purported termination, and reserving their client’s position. The bank then sent a draft termination agreement setting out the sums it believed Mr Geys was entitled to.  Mr Geys did not agree with the figures and refused to sign the agreement. The bank then paid his notice pay into his bank account on 18 December 2007.  Mr Geys’ solicitors then wrote to the bank saying that Mr Geys had decided to affirm the contract, i.e. he had opted not to accept what he considered to be a fundamental breach of contract by the bank.

The Supreme Court agreed with Mr Geys. They said that the bank had a right to terminate the contract with immediate effect, but that the contract had been drafted in such a way that the contract could only be terminated “at any time with immediate effect by making a payment to him in lieu of notice”.  They had not done that when they had purported to dismiss on 29 November 2007, so their purported dismissal amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that where a party has committed a fundamental breach of contract, it is for the innocent party to either accept the fundamental breach, and treat the contract as being at an end, or to affirm the contract and allow it to continue – which is what Mr Geys did.  In this case, by allowing the employment to continue until 2008, Mr Geys’ entitlement to a termination payment increased from €8 million to €12.5 million because the later date of termination triggered an entitlement to a bonus.

The problem for the bank was the wording of the contract – and in particular the word “by” in the pay in lieu of notice clause.  Had the clause been more carefully drafted, the bank could have dismissed Mr Geys with immediate effect, and Mr Geys would not have been able to affirm the contract.  It must be rare that a two letter word costs a party €4.5 million!

The moral in the story is make sure your contracts are properly drafted and seek advice before dismissing someone and making a payment in lieu.

Do you need help with drafting a contract of employment? We can help, please call us on 01243 836840 for a no obligation chat or email us at [email protected].

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.

 

Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2013-02-26 11:58:382014-12-03 15:40:07When a two letter word costs nearly £4 million

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • FAQs about COT3s 18th December 2020
  • Can an employer withdraw a notice of redundancy? 18th December 2020
  • Will employers be able to insist that staff have the Covid-19 vaccination? 18th December 2020
  • Furlough over Christmas? 18th December 2020
  • Update – Furlough scheme extended 18th December 2020
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only