header-logo header-logo

29 January 2015
Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Compensation excludes dividends

Company directors who save on tax by accepting a modest salary and remuneration by dividend could be in for a nasty shock if they ever come to claim compensation.

A company director had his compensation capped to £9,254 annual earnings with dividend income entirely excluded from consideration, in a landmark decision at Manchester Employment Tribunal. If the income from the dividend had been included, he would have been awarded £74,000 in compensation.

In Sheridan v GTECH Solutions Ltd, the tribunal refused to acknowledge the dividend of the director/shareholder. Instead, it calculated a cap of one year’s earning, in line with s 124(1ZA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by reference only to the claimants PAYE salary of £756 per month.

Ian Procter, solicitor advocate and partner at Green Solicitors, who represented the employer respondent, says: “This is a landmark decision and although coming at first instance will be very persuasive to other tribunals due to its careful consideration of the law and extensive and detailed judgment.

“It is thought to be the first time this issue has been raised before an employment tribunal following the introduction of the cap recently and the tribunal accepted my submission, that ‘for the purpose of calculating the statutory cap earnings did not include dividends but only PAYE earnings, as only they were contractually due under the contract of employment. Further a dividend arises as a result of an individual’s status as shareholder and is not payable by the company as of right or as a result of employment’.”

Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll