Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawEmployment contractsMorality clauses

Tullett Prebon Group recovers no-show clause money

by Personnel Today 2 Sep 2008
by Personnel Today 2 Sep 2008

Tullett Prebon Group Limited v Ghaleb El-Hajjali

Facts

Tullett Prebon Group Limited (“Tullett”), a City investment firm, entered into an employment contract with Mr El-Hajjali, a senior derivatives broker. The contract contained a “no-show” clause which stated that if El-Hajjali did not take up his new employment, he would pay Tullett a sum equal to 50% of his net basic salary plus 50% of the signing payment that Tullett had agreed to pay him. This equated to approximately £293,000. Shortly after signing the contract, El-Hajjali changed his mind about taking up employment with Tullett and decided to remain with his existing employer. Tullett estimated that El-Hajjali’s failure to take up employment with the company had lost it between £2.5 and £3.7m.

Decision

Tullett brought a claim in the High Court for liquidated damages for breach of the employment contract. Tullett sought to recover the £293,000 due under the “no-show” clause. El-Hajjali argued that the clause was a penalty clause rather than a liquidated damages clause and therefore void.

The High Court found in favour of Tullett and held that the clause was not a penalty clause. In making its decision, the court gave particular consideration to the fact that El-Hajjali had received expert legal advice throughout the employment contract negotiations and that, on the facts of this case, the parties had equal bargaining power.

The court said that only an amount which was extravagant or unconscionable when compared with the loss which was caused by the breach could be deemed to be a penalty. It found that Tullett had tried to mitigate its loss and therefore the correct measure of damages was the consequential loss rather than merely the cost of recruiting a replacement.

Implications

This decision is likely to have the greatest impact in sectors such as financial services and media where a high-level recruit will often be expected to generate a significant level of profit. More employers in these sectors may now be encouraged to include a “no show” clause in the employment contract when making a significant hire.

Businesses hoping to be able to rely on such a provision should take note of the pointers contained in the Tullett judgment. First, it is useful to be able to demonstrate relative equality of bargaining power and for both sides to have legal advice can help to achieve this. Also, a financial assessment of predicted losses should be prepared before the contract is finalised and agreed between the parties.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Finally, the aim of the clause should not be to deter a contractual breach but should be to compensate for a breach. As such, the amount of the liquidated damages must, at least, give the appearance of being at a reasonable level. Coming from the opposite perspective, an employer seeking to retain an employee who has been offered a post elsewhere should increasingly expect the cost of any liquidated damages to be included in the price they have to pay to retain the employee.

Nicholas Jew, partner, DLA Piper

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
On the move: James Moore, Tony van Kralingen and Phil Howe
next post
Young people not being properly prepared for working life

You may also like

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

2 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+