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 law

Turning policies into contractual rights: Peries v Wirefast Limited

by Eversheds HR Group 5 Dec 2006
by Eversheds HR Group 5 Dec 2006

Peries v Wirefast Limited, EAT, 14 September 2006


Background


Mr Peries was selected for redundancy by his employer, Wirefast Limited. Subsequently, he brought a tribunal claim arguing that, among other things, Wirefast had failed to comply with an agreed redundancy policy. Peries claimed that, under the policy, he was entitled to 12 weeks’ redeployment pay and the services of a professional outplacement adviser. However, the document containing the policy included the statement: ‘this is not part of your contract’. The tribunal concluded the policy did not give rise to any contractually binding obligations on the employer, and rejected Peries’ claims. Peries appealed.


Decision


The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal on the grounds that it is possible for a policy, over time, to give rise to contractual rights, even though it was originally expressed to be non-contractual. Saying that a document is for information purposes only and does not form part of the contract of employment does not preclude a policy emerging based on custom and practice that hardens into a contractual entitlement. The EAT did not go so far as to say that the redundancy policy had become contractual. Instead, it sent the case back to the tribunal to consider all the facts and decide whether the redundancy benefit had become a contractual entitlement.


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.

Comment


This case serves as a reminder to employers not to be lulled into a false sense of security by a ‘non-contractual’ label. The fact that a benefit was originally described as non-contractual will be relevant in determining whether its status has been altered through custom and practice. But, as this case shows, that description will not be conclusive.




Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Deadline passes for public sector employers to implement disability rights schemes
next post
Heyday confident it will win its judicial review of age regulations

You may also like

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

1 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...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+