| Commerzbank AG v Keen | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) |
|
| Case opinions | |
| Mummery LJ, Moses LJ | |
| Keywords | |
| Contract of employment, terms | |
Commerzbank AG v Keen [2006] EWCA Civ 1536 is a UK labour law case, concerning the construction of terms in a contract of employment.
Mr Keen managed the proprietary trading desk in Commerzbank AG, paid a basic salary of £120,000. The bonus was awarded at the bank’s discretion, and was not payable if the employee was no longer working or on notice to leave. For each of 2003 and 2004 Mr Keen received almost €3m, paid the following March. The desk was closed in May 2005, he stopped work and was made redundant in June. He got no bonus, and so claimed there was a breach of contract to not exercise the bank’s discretion irrationally or perversely. The decision to give a bonus for 2003 and 2004, but not 2005 was irrational. The contractual provision the bank relied on was, in any event, contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 section 3.
Morison J held there was an arguable case. [1] Commerzbank AG appealed.
Mummery LJ held that the burden was high to show that exercise of discretion was perverse. There was a lack of independent evidence about the size of the bonus pools in 2003 and 2004, and the bank did have a wide contractual discretion, so the decision to award the bonuses before was not irrational. An employee could reasonably be regarded as a ‘consumer’ under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 if the employer supplied him with services or goods for consumption. He was not within the natural meaning of ‘consumer’. But the issue about section 3 did not involve this. The bonus did not come within the ‘standard terms of business’ of banking. It was a term of remuneration of some employees, so there was no real prospect of success.
Jacob LJ concurred.
Moses LJ gave concurring reasons.
In United Kingdom law, the concept of wrongful dismissal refers exclusively to dismissal contrary to the contract of employment, which effectively means premature termination, either due to insufficient notice or lack of grounds. Although wrongful dismissal is usually associated with lack of notice sometimes it can also be caused by arbitrary dismissal where no notice was required but certain grounds were specified in the contract as being the only ones available but none existed.
L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature. There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to both actual contract terms and notices that are seen to constitute a contractual obligation.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others[2009] UKSC 6is a judicial decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to bank charges in the United Kingdom, with reference to the situation where a bank account holder goes into unplanned overdraft.
Implied terms in English law are default rules for contracts on points where the terms which contracting parties expressly choose are silent, or mandatory rules which operate to override terms that the parties may have themselves chosen. The purpose of implied terms is often to supplement a contractual agreement in the interest of making the deal effective for the purpose of business, to achieve fairness between the parties or to relieve hardship.
Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2000] UKHL 39 is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms.
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333 is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms and unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.
Paragon Finance plc v Nash [2001] EWCA Civ 1466 is an English contract law case concerning unfair contract terms.
An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 is a landmark UK labour law and English contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, concerning the scope of statutory protection of rights for working individuals. It confirmed the view, also taken by the Court of Appeal, that the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account when deciding whether a person counts as an employee, to get employment rights. As Lord Clarke said,
the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem.
James v Greenwich London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 35 is a UK labour law case, concerning implied contracts for workers who work through employment agencies. Its opinion was reversed by the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 and superseded by the more recent Supreme Court decision by Lord Clarke in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher.
Muschett v H M Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 is a UK labour law case, which held that an agency worker had no right to claim discrimination from either the agency or the place of work.
Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.
Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.
Nelson v BBC [1980] ICR 110 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal and the role of contributory fault.
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi[2015] UKSC 67, together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, are English contract law cases concerning the validity of penalty clauses and the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. The UK Supreme Court ruled on both cases together on 4 November 2015, updating the established legal rule on penalty clauses and replacing the test of whether or not a disputed clause is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" with a test asking whether it imposed a proportionate detriment in relation to any "legitimate interest" of the innocent party.
Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5 is a landmark case in UK labour law and company law on employment rights. The UK Supreme Court held the transport corporation, Uber, must pay its drivers the national living wage, and at least 28 days paid holidays, from the time that drivers log onto the Uber app, and are willing and able to work. The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and upheld the Court of Appeal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Employment Tribunal. The Supreme Court, and all courts below, left open whether the drivers are also employees but indicated that the criteria for employment status was fulfilled, given Uber's control over drivers.
Mallone v BPB Industries plc [2002] EWCA Civ 126 is a UK labour law case, concerning control of an employer's discretion.