Candy Brothers Win London Bonus Dispute With Ex-Chelsea Barracks Planner
Candy & Candy Ltd. doesn’t have to pay a 160,000-pound ($255,000) bonus to Andrew Locke, because he wasn’t employed on the date the bonus would have been owed, the U.K. Court of Appeal ruled today.
Locke was hired by the Candys on Sept. 17, 2007, and fired by the firm on Sept. 7 the following year. The firm paid Locke six months-salary after he was fired, under the terms of his contract. The company didn’t pay the 160,000-pound bonus because Locke hadn’t been employed for a full year.
Locke’s lawyer, Andrew Stafford, had argued at an earlier hearing his client should receive the bonus as part of his severance. Stafford had said Candy & Candy “should not be able to take the benefit of the claimant’s work and evade payment,” according to the judgment from Justice Rupert Jackson today.
Locke declined to immediately comment after the ruling. Stafford’s request for permission to appeal the judgment was denied. He can still apply directly to the U.K. Supreme Court to hear the matter, the judges said.
Candy & Candy “has always maintained that it acted properly and in accordance with Mr. Locke’s contract of employment and that he was not entitled to the bonus he claimed,” the firm said in an e-mailed statement. “We hope that this is now an end to the matter.”
Prince of Wales
The Candys’ CPC Group Ltd. and the real-estate investment arm of Qatar’s sovereign-wealth fund settled a lawsuit in July over their failed deal to redevelop the Chelsea Barracks site. CPC accused Qatari Diar of wrongfully backing out of the deal to avoid upsetting the Prince of Wales, who had complained about the design.
Under the settlement, Christian Candy dissolved his interest in the deal and apologized for “any offense” caused by bringing the Prince into the case. A joint venture of CPC and Qatari Diar paid 959 million pounds for the Chelsea Barracks site in January 2008. Qatari Diar bought out CPC’s stake in November that year.
The case is Locke v. Candy & Candy Ltd., A2/2010/0807, Court of Appeal, Civil Division (London).
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at firstname.lastname@example.org.