262:
170:
68:
27:
352:, 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.
339:
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
474:
85:
40:
132:
104:
638:
381:
460:
111:
46:
199:
118:
100:
643:
486:
331:
case holding that a discretionary bonus may form part of the damages for wrongful dismissal, if the sum of bonuses is predictable.
633:
374:
570:
272:
125:
434:
367:
239:
221:
151:
54:
192:
502:
446:
261:
530:
89:
558:
397:
182:
186:
178:
78:
348:
The Court of Appeal held the discretion in awarding a bonus had to be exercised honestly and in
203:
544:
420:
8:
506:
324:
290:
588:
450:
604:
574:
548:
534:
520:
492:
464:
424:
516:
408:
627:
599:
584:
328:
359:
349:
67:
92:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
625:
191:but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
375:
101:"Cantor Fitzgernald International v Horkulak"
389:
55:Learn how and when to remove these messages
382:
368:
321:Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International
260:
255:Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International
639:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
240:Learn how and when to remove this message
222:Learn how and when to remove this message
152:Learn how and when to remove this message
488:Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
475:McClelland v NI General Health Services
626:
461:Société Générale, London Branch v Geys
571:Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital
363:
273:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
163:
90:adding citations to reliable sources
61:
20:
303:Potter LJ, Carnworth LJ and Bodey J
13:
14:
655:
435:Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC
36:This article has multiple issues.
503:Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int
447:Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth
168:
66:
25:
644:2004 in United Kingdom case law
77:needs additional citations for
44:or discuss these issues on the
634:United Kingdom labour case law
559:Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd
531:Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc
1:
615:
7:
355:
343:
10:
660:
398:Employment Rights Act 1996
581:
567:
555:
541:
527:
513:
499:
483:
471:
457:
443:
431:
417:
405:
395:
313:Bonus, wrongful dismissal
312:
307:
302:
297:
286:
278:
268:
259:
254:
610:
390:Wrongful dismissal cases
334:
177:This article includes a
206:more precise citations.
16:2004 UK labour law case
545:Barber v Somerset CC
421:Johnson v Unisys Ltd
86:improve this article
589:wrongful dismissal
179:list of references
595:
594:
317:
316:
250:
249:
242:
232:
231:
224:
162:
161:
154:
136:
59:
651:
605:Unfair dismissal
489:
384:
377:
370:
361:
360:
264:
252:
251:
245:
238:
227:
220:
216:
213:
207:
202:this article by
193:inline citations
172:
171:
164:
157:
150:
146:
143:
137:
135:
94:
70:
62:
51:
29:
28:
21:
659:
658:
654:
653:
652:
650:
649:
648:
624:
623:
618:
613:
596:
591:
577:
563:
551:
537:
523:
517:Reda v Flag Ltd
509:
495:
487:
479:
467:
453:
439:
427:
413:
409:Wilson v Racher
401:
391:
388:
358:
346:
337:
282:14 October 2004
246:
235:
234:
233:
228:
217:
211:
208:
197:
183:related reading
173:
169:
158:
147:
141:
138:
95:
93:
83:
71:
30:
26:
17:
12:
11:
5:
657:
647:
646:
641:
636:
622:
621:
617:
614:
612:
609:
608:
607:
602:
593:
592:
582:
579:
578:
568:
565:
564:
556:
553:
552:
542:
539:
538:
528:
525:
524:
514:
511:
510:
500:
497:
496:
484:
481:
480:
472:
469:
468:
458:
455:
454:
444:
441:
440:
432:
429:
428:
418:
415:
414:
406:
403:
402:
396:
393:
392:
387:
386:
379:
372:
364:
357:
354:
345:
342:
340:compensation.
336:
333:
315:
314:
310:
309:
305:
304:
300:
299:
295:
294:
288:
284:
283:
280:
276:
275:
270:
266:
265:
257:
256:
248:
247:
230:
229:
187:external links
176:
174:
167:
160:
159:
74:
72:
65:
60:
34:
33:
31:
24:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
656:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
631:
629:
620:
619:
606:
603:
601:
600:UK labour law
598:
597:
590:
586:
585:UK labour law
580:
576:
573:
572:
566:
561:
560:
554:
550:
547:
546:
540:
536:
533:
532:
526:
522:
519:
518:
512:
508:
507:EWCA Civ 1287
505:
504:
498:
494:
491:
490:
482:
477:
476:
470:
466:
463:
462:
456:
452:
449:
448:
442:
437:
436:
430:
426:
423:
422:
416:
411:
410:
404:
399:
394:
385:
380:
378:
373:
371:
366:
365:
362:
353:
351:
341:
332:
330:
329:UK labour law
326:
325:EWCA Civ 1287
323:
322:
311:
306:
301:
298:Case opinions
296:
292:
291:EWCA Civ 1287
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
271:
267:
263:
258:
253:
244:
241:
226:
223:
215:
205:
201:
195:
194:
188:
184:
180:
175:
166:
165:
156:
153:
145:
134:
131:
127:
124:
120:
117:
113:
110:
106:
103: –
102:
98:
97:Find sources:
91:
87:
81:
80:
75:This article
73:
69:
64:
63:
58:
56:
49:
48:
43:
42:
37:
32:
23:
22:
19:
569:
557:
543:
529:
515:
501:
485:
473:
459:
445:
433:
419:
407:
347:
338:
320:
319:
318:
236:
218:
209:
198:Please help
190:
148:
139:
129:
122:
115:
108:
96:
84:Please help
79:verification
76:
52:
45:
39:
38:Please help
35:
18:
451:EWCA Civ 28
204:introducing
628:Categories
616:References
350:good faith
293:, ICR 402
212:March 2016
142:March 2016
112:newspapers
41:improve it
478:1 WLR 594
287:Citations
47:talk page
356:See also
344:Judgment
308:Keywords
575:UKSC 58
549:UKHL 13
535:UKHL 35
521:UKPC 38
493:UKHL 28
465:UKSC 63
438:ICR 755
425:UKHL 13
412:ICR 428
279:Decided
200:improve
126:scholar
562:Ch 305
128:
121:
114:
107:
99:
611:Notes
335:Facts
327:is a
269:Court
185:, or
133:JSTOR
119:books
587:and
583:see
400:s 86
105:news
88:by
630::
189:,
181:,
50:.
383:e
376:t
369:v
243:)
237:(
225:)
219:(
214:)
210:(
196:.
155:)
149:(
144:)
140:(
130:·
123:·
116:·
109:·
82:.
57:)
53:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)