The court dismissed the appeal against a first tier tax tribunal decision, but referred several issues back to the tribunal, with some payments to be re-examined, including termination and guaranteed bonus payments. The judgement has no impact on the current Rangers owners. Lord Doherty, the tribunal judge, said in his judgement: “The appeal is dismissed except in so far as it relates to the termination payments. “I shall remit the case to the first tier tribunal with a direction to allow the taxpayers’ appeals against the assessments relating to the payments to the sub-trusts of Sir David Murray, his sons, Mr McClelland and Mr MacMillan; to proceed as accords in relation to the termination payments, the payments in respect of guaranteed bonuses, and any related questions of grossing up.Standing my findings and my disposal, the remit should be to the first tier tribunal as originally constituted.” A spokesperson for HMRC added: “We are naturally disappointed with today’s decision and are considering an appeal.” HMRC has one month to decide whether or not to seek permission to lodge an appeal with the Inner House of the Court of Session. The recent case of Hershaw and others v Sheffield City Council is a timely reminder to employers to be careful about how and what they communicate to their employees, particularly with regards to pay. Shoosmiths report that “the case stemmed from a decision by Sheffield City Council to vary the pay of a group of market patrol officers following implementation of a Single Status pay and grading review. As a result, the group of employees accepted the variation (which resulted in lower pay) under duress and raised an internal appeal. However, no outcome to the appeal was ever sent to them and their pay did not change. The group therefore raised a formal grievance.” The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that, contrary to what the employment tribunal had decided, the document sent to the employees by the employer local authority regarding the change in their pay was capable of being a contractual document which, unless vitiated by obvious mistake, had expressed terms and conditions which had been acted on and accepted by the employees to whom it had been addressed. Accordingly, the employees' appeal against the tribunal's rejection of their claim for unauthorised deduction from wages would be allowed and the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal to consider whether mistake had vitiated the contractual effect which the document would otherwise have had. We are grateful to Lexis for their analysis of the decision: Communications to employees about pay changes 1 August 2014
Restrictive covenants, notice period and salary
4 August 2014
The High Court has ruled on whether an employee can be restrained from working for a competitor during his notice period (and the period covered by his restrictive covenants) where the employer stops paying his salary.
The High Court considered this question in the case of Sunrise Brokers LLP v Michael Rodgers, and we are grateful to Daniel Barnett for providing this summary:
CIPP Policy News Journal
08/04/2015, Page 112 of 521
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker