Hello, my name is***** am a qualified lawyer and it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today.
Hi there. Do you know why the payment was made later?
There is a famous case on this subject, namely Societe Generale v Geys, which went as high as the Supeme Court. There, it was ruled that the contract had not terminated until the PILON was paid to the employee, even though they were given notice of termination a couple of months beforehand. However, the PILON clause there sated that the employer “reserves the right to terminate your employment at any time with immediate effect by making a payment to you in lieu of notice”, which suggested that it was the payment that would terminate the contract, not the giving of notice. This is not quite the case here – the clause says that once your employment is terminated, they have the right to make a PILON so the termination itself is not dependent on the PILON being made. So this is the main issue I would see with the argument here and the main difference with the Geys case. Of course, anything can happen in court and a judge may interpret this in different way and to your advantage but by looking at the wording and the case law, this is the main risk I see with claiming.
I hope this has answered your query. I would be grateful if you could please take a second to leave a positive rating (3, 4 or 5 stars) as that is an important part of our process and recognises the time I have spent assisting you. If you need me to clarify anything before you go - please get back to me on here and I will assist further as best as I can. Thank you
Well the issue with such wordings is that they are open to interpretation and it is certainly not black and white where you can state with a degree of certainty whether it will work in your favour or not. The wording suggests that a termination would have already occurred before they are able to make the payment, so that is my main concern. The Geys wording specifically said that they can terminate the employment BY making the payment, here it is ON termination, i.e. once termination has already occurred. But this is the issue with such clauses, it is a play on words sometimes and only a judge can decide what they believe it was meant and how it should apply. Hence, why only a court can give you a definitive answer. Hope this clarifies?
Sorry I had to leave the office to travel home earlier. If you had worked there for more tan 2 years at the date of termination and the reason for your termination is redundancy, then you would be entitled to a redundancy payment as well. Is this what you were referring to?
Hello, I see you have read my response to your query. If this has answered your question please take a second to leave a positive rating by selecting 3, 4 or 5 stars from the top of the page. I spend a lot of time and effort answering individual queries and I am not credited for my time until you leave your rating. If you still need further help please get back to me on here and I will assist as best as I can. Many thanks.
Hello, do you need any further assistance or are you happy with the above response? Look forward to hearing from you.