![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Taylor v Motability Finance Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2619 (Comm) (12 November 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2004/2619.html Cite as: [2004] EWHC 2619 (Comm) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Robert Taylor |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
Motability Finance Limited |
Defendant |
____________________
Alistair J. McGregor Q.C. and Julian Wilson (instructed by Denton Wilde Sapte) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 11th November 2004
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr. Justice Cooke :
The application
"the court give summary judgment under CPR rule 24.2 against the Claimant on the following issues on which the Claimant has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason why they should be disposed of at trial:
1.1 the claim of bad faith pleaded in paragraph 48 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim;
1.2 the claim for a percentage of the RVI settlement pleaded in paragraph 49 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim;
1.3 the claim for a restitutionary remedy in respect of the RVI Project pleaded in paragraph 50 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim;
1.4 the averments in paragraph 2.3 and paragraph 35 of the Re-Amended Reply, and the 3rd to 5th sentences of paragraph 38 of the Re-Amended Reply.
In the alternative, that these parts of the Claimant's statements of case be struck out under CPR rule 3.4 as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims;
……..
because:
(1) there is no adequate factual and/or legal basis for the claims which have no prospect of success; and
(2) if not disposed or summarily or struck-out, the claims will take up a disproportionate share of the court's resources and significantly increase the costs and length of the trial and will impair the prospects of any alternative resolution of the parties' dispute.
The Re-Amended Particulars of Claim
"48. The Defendant's decision to pay the Claimant only 50% by way of special bonus with respect to his role in the Residual Value Arbitration was irrational and/or in bad faith and the Defendant's decision was therefore a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
48.1 failing to communicate either immediately or within a reasonable time the decision of the Remuneration Committee to cap Special Bonuses when, as the Defendant well knew.
48.1.1 the Claimant was making wholly exceptional efforts to ensure that the Defendant's case was successful.
48.1.2 without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 48.1.1, the Defendant's chief executive Ed Lester had by the end of his meeting with the Claimant on 13th February knowingly created an expectation on the part of the Claimant that the Claimant would receive a substantial bonus, consisting of at least 200% of his annual salary, such bonus being directly linked to the monetary recovery achieved in the RVI arbitration. The details of the Claimant's case on this point are as follows…
49 By reason of the Defendant's breach of contract, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage...
The Claimants will say that on this basis a reasonable employer would have paid 0.5% of RVI settlement - £375,000.
50 Alternatively, the Defendant's contract of employment having been terminated as a result of the Defendant's repudiatory breach of contract on 31.05.03 (as set out in paragraph 51), the Claimant is entitled to a restitutionary remedy in respect of his work under the RVI Project. The value of the benefit received at the Claimant's expense is the fees which would have been charged by a negotiation consultant:
0.5% RVI Settlement: £375,000."
The Re-Amended Reply
The facts
i) In the Position Description, which was the document used for recruiting purposes, the job title was that of "Finance Director" and amongst the responsibilities listed was "Insurance Risk Manager". Among the key tasks was "risk management, to ensure a systematic approach to the management of risk across the business and to monitor the process and cost of laying off that risk – particularly the Company's residual value risk".
ii) In the letter to the Defendant in which the job offer was made, the salary was specified with various allowances. A twelve month notice period was provided. The letter referred to salaries being reviewed annually and to an additional opportunity to earn a discretionary annual performance bonus based on the achievement of agreed objectives. The annual bonus opportunity was expressed to be 30% of salary but the Defendants were said to be currently considering the introduction of a long-term incentive process, details of which would be available later in the year. The bonus year ran from October to September.
iii) By a letter of 4th May 2002 the Claimant accepted the offer detailed in the Defendant's letter.
iv) Pursuant to a question from the Claimant, who took up his position on 1st July 2002, the Human Resources Department of the Defendants on 2nd July 2002 confirmed that bonuses were not mentioned in the employment contract as they were discretionary and did not constitute a contractual right.
v) The contract of employment was signed by the Claimant on the 6th August 2002 and made no mention of any bonus. The job title was given as "Finance Director" but under that heading the following appeared: -
"Your job title does not limit or define what you may be required to do. Because of the changing nature of the business, the company reserves the right at any time during your employment to require you to undertake any duties falling within your capabilities."
Governing principles
The challenged pleas