Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Société General ordered to pay former investment banker EUR 12.5 million

3rd January, 2013

The Supreme Court has ruled that Société General must pay former investment baker, Raphael Geys, 12.5 million euros in compensation for the manner in which it terminated his employment. The court ruled that companies wishing to terminate staff with immediate effect by making a payment in lieu of notice must do so in “clear and unambiguous terms”.

Mr Geys appealed to the Supreme Court against a decision that his contract of employment had been terminated when his employer made a payment of lieu (“PILON”) into his bank account. Mr Geys’s contract of employment provided for three months’ written notice yet Société General’s employee handbook provided that it could terminate his employment at any time with immediate effect by making a PILON. On 29 November 2007, Société General told Mr Geys that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect and he was escorted from the building. On 18 December, Société General paid a substantial sum into Mr Geys’s bank account. On 2 January 2008, Mr Geys’s solicitors wrote to his employer to say that he wished to affirm his contract. On 4 January 2008 Société General wrote to Mr Geys (which he received on 6 January) confirming the details of the termination of his employment and that the payment made into his bank account was a PILON. Société General cross-appealed against the decision that its earlier repudiation of the contract by summarily dismissing him had not automatically terminated the contract.

The Supreme Court upheld Mr Geys’s appeal. It held that a party’s repudiation of a contract of employment did not automatically terminate the contract, and that the contract would only be terminated if and when the other party elected to accept the repudiation. Further, it was held that an employee should not have to check their bank account regularly in order to discover whether they are still employed. Instead, the court said that an employee should receive the PILON along with notification from their employer that the payment had been made and that it had been made with reference to the contractual right to terminate the employment with immediate effect. It was therefore ruled that it was on 6 January 2008 (when Mr Geys received the letter of 4 January) that the contractual right to terminate under the PILON method was validly exercised and his employment was terminated.

This ruling is a stark reminder of the need for businesses to follow correct procedures when terminating employment and our specialist employment solicitors can provide you with advice throughout this process. For further advice or information, please contact Claire Brook by sending an email to [email protected] or via telephone on 01244 405575.

You might also be interested in...

Why there is more to CSR than just boosting a company’s ego

6th July, 2018

When a business invests in its community it deserves praise – but it must go beyond that, writes Helen Watson, a trustee at Claire House and partner at Aaron and Partners Solicitors. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the link between a company and the community in which it operates. As a trustee on charity boards including Claire House... Read More »

Stuart Haynes reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden 14th to 17th June 2018

4th July, 2018

Stuart Haynes, Corporate & Commercial Partner and IAG Global Board Member, reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden held 14th to 17th June 2018 Stuart Haynes (IAG Global Board Member) Stuart Scott-Goldstone and Nick Clarke attended the recent IAG Global meeting in Wiesbaden which was held at the Grand Hotel Nassauer Hof from 14th – and 17th July 2018 The meeting... Read More »

DNA Test ordered in inheritance dispute where paternity questioned

6th June, 2018

Rhiannon Edwards, Solicitor in the Wills, Trusts and Tax department, discusses the recent judgement in the case of Nield-Moir v Freeman, where the High Court has ordered one of two daughters of Colin Birtles, who has died, to take a DNA test to prove paternity as part of an inheritance dispute In an unusual case, the High Court... Read More »

Contact Us