Misplaced Pages

Cantor Fitzgernald International v Horkulak

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
2004 UK labour law case

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Cantor Fitzgernald International v Horkulak" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International
CourtCourt of Appeal of England and Wales
Decided14 October 2004
Citations EWCA Civ 1287, ICR 402
Case opinions
Potter LJ, Carnworth LJ and Bodey J
Keywords
Bonus, wrongful dismissal

Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International EWCA Civ 1287 is a UK labour law case holding that a discretionary bonus may form part of the damages for wrongful dismissal, if the sum of bonuses is predictable.

Facts

Mr Horkulak traded derivatives on a 3 year fixed contract paying £250k with an annual discretionary bonus. He claimed constructive and wrongful dismissal after an episode of bullying and abuse. The employer did not pay him the bonus, and he claimed this should be included in the figure for compensation.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held the discretion in awarding a bonus had to be exercised honestly and in good faith, not capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably. Because Mr Harkuluk was constructively and wrongfully dismissed as a result of bullying and abuse, the bonus was a part of damages and the court could predict what would be given. The discretionary factor did not take the bonus out of the scope for damages. Damages were however reduced from £900k slightly given the failure to mitigate.

See also

Wrongful dismissal cases
Employment Rights Act 1996 s 86
Wilson v Racher ICR 428
Johnson v Unisys Ltd UKHL 13
Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC ICR 755
Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth EWCA Civ 28
Société Générale, London Branch v Geys UKSC 63
McClelland v NI General Health Services 1 WLR 594
Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland UKHL 28
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int EWCA Civ 1287
Reda v Flag Ltd UKPC 38
Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc UKHL 35
Barber v Somerset CC UKHL 13
Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd Ch 305
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital UKSC 58
see UK labour law and wrongful dismissal

Notes

References

Categories: