Murray V. Leisureplay Notes
This is a sample of our (approximately) 4 page long Murray V. Leisureplay notes, which we sell as part of the Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Oxford in 2013 that contains (approximately) 523 pages of notes across 153 different documents.
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Murray V. Leisureplay Revision
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
MURRAY V. LEISUREPLAY FACTS Issues arising out of the dismissal by the respondents ("MFC") of the appellant, Mr Murray, as Chief Executive Director of MFC. That dismissal prompted Mr Murray to sue MFC under clause 17.1 of his service agreement dated 2 June 1998 with MFC ("the agreement"). This court is concerned only with the small number of issues in the action which are the subject of the present appeal and cross appeal. The first issue ("the penalty issue") is whether the clause in the agreement providing for the payment of a year's gross salary in the event of termination of Mr Murray's employment without one year's notice is unenforceable as a penalty. The relevant clause in the contract provided: Liquidated Damages: In the event of a Wrongful Termination by way of liquidated damages the Company shall forthwith pay to the Executive a sum equal to one year's gross salary, pension contributions and other benefits in kind assuming that salary, pension contributions and benefits in kind had continued to be paid at the same rate as immediately prior to the date of Wrongful Termination. HOLDING BUXTON LJ Re-casting the "in terrorum language" I respectfully agree with my Lady in her paragraph 47, citing the observations of Mance LJ in the Cine case, that the language of stipulations in terrorem sounds unusual in modern ears; and particularly when applied to a contract such as the present, where a company well able to look after itself employed to play a leading and entrepreneurial role in its affairs a Chief Executive who, as his evidence cited by my Lady demonstrates, was motivated by a desire to protect his own interests. That insight requires a recasting in more modern terms of the classic test set out by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop  AC at p86: "The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending party; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage" That recasting is to be found in the judgment of Colman J in Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia  QB 752 at 762G, a passage cited with approval by Mance LJ in paragraph 13 of his judgment in the Cine case  EWCA Civ 1699:
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.