Payments in lieu of notice

New and updated

  • Equal pay: Article 119 covers notice pay on employer's insolvency

    Date:
    1 July 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    The EAT holds in Clark v Secretary of State for Employment that pay in lieu of notice is "pay" within the meaning of Article 119, even if the payment is made by the Secretary of State for Employment out of the National Insurance Fund where the employer is insolvent.

  • Insolvency: Administrators and receivers liable on adopted contracts

    Date:
    1 April 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    Where the conduct of an administrator or receiver of a company amounts to an election to treat a continued contract of employment as giving rise to a separate liability in the administration or receivership, that contract is "adopted" within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, holds the House of Lords in Powdrill and Atkinson v Watson and another; Talbot and another v Cadge and another; and Talbot and another v Grundy and another.

  • Date of dismissal: Deductions from notice pay did not affect dismissal date

    Date:
    1 July 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    The EAT holds in Londis (Holdings) Ltd v Wandless that an industrial tribunal was wrong to conclude that the fact that tax had been deducted from a dismissed employee's payment in lieu of notice placed the effective date of termination at the end of the notice period instead of at the earlier date given in the letter of dismissal.

  • Contracts of employment: Employee "traded" notice rights for redundancy bonus

    Date:
    1 July 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    An employee who took voluntary redundancy on very short notice in order to receive a bonus payable only to employees dismissed by a certain date, could not later claim damages representing pay in lieu of his contractual notice entitlement, holds the High Court in Baldwin v British Coal Corporation.

  • Dismissal: Payment in lieu cuts short notice period

    Date:
    1 June 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    The EAT holds in Marshall (Cambridge) Ltd v Hamblin that, by exercising a contractual right to make a payment in lieu of notice, an employer can waive, or cut short, a period of notice given by a resigning employee, without this amounting to a dismissal. This was so, even though the payment made took no account of the loss of substantial commission to the employee for the balance of the original notice period.

  • Wages Act: Pay in lieu of notice not covered by Wages Act

    Date:
    1 April 1992
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Delaney v Staples t/a De Montfort Recruitment, the House of Lords holds that a payment in lieu of notice, paid by an employer when terminating employment without notice, is not "wages"; and so cannot be the subject of a complaint to an industrial tribunal under the Wages Act 1986.

  • Wages Act: Pay in lieu of notice is not "wages"

    Date:
    25 January 1991
    Type:
    Law reports

    In the first Wages Act case to come before the Court of Appeal - Delaney v Staples t/a De Montfort Recruitment - the Court rules that a payment in lieu of notice is not "wages" and so cannot be the subject of a complaint under the Act.

  • Secretary of State for Employment v Cooper

    Date:
    31 December 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Secretary of State for Employment v Cooper [1987] ICR 766 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was appropriate for the Secretary of State for Employment to reduce the amount of money awarded in lieu of notice in an insolvency case by an amount equivalent to the basic rate of tax.