Assurances by CEO bind Company to extend share options post-employment

December 10, 2025

Share this article

Assurances by CEO bind Company to extend share options post-employment

The importance of obtaining legal advice on settlement agreements where employees have share options, was highlighted in the High Court case of Dixon v GlobalData Plc [2025] WEHC 2156 (Ch). 
Facts In this case Mr Dixon had worked for his employer for nine years between 2006 and 2014, during which time he had been granted share options in the parent company. 
Mr Dixon agreed to extend the date his employment would terminate by three months, and agreed to be bound by post termination restrictions, relying on an assurance given by the CEO of the parent company that he could retain his share options after leaving (usually, under the terms of the share option scheme, they would lapse at the time his employment terminated). The parties entered into a settlement agreement to record these terms; however, the parent company took no steps to exercise its discretion to extend the share options. 
Several years later Mr Dixon sought to exercise his share options, but the company refused, claiming they had lapsed on termination of his employment. 
Mr Dixon brought a claim in the High Court. 
Decision The High Court found that, whilst the share option scheme rules provided discretionary extension power which would have allowed for options to continue after termination, these had not been exercised formally by the company and the CEO was not authorised by the Board to exercise this power. 
An alternative argument put forward by Mr Dixon was through the doctrine of proprietary estoppel (a legal principle preventing a party from reneging on a promise or assurance in respect of land or property, when the other party has relied on that promise or assurance to their detriment). The High Court found that assurances had been given to Mr Dixon by the CEO that, if he remained in employment for a further few months then, following the termination of his employment, he would be entitled to exercise his share options on the same basis as if he were employed. Mr Dixon had relied on this assurance, it was reasonable for him to have done so, this assurance was to his detriment, and the Court held it would be “unconscionable” for the company to renege on the promise. 
As such, Mr Dixon’s claim succeeded. 
Takeaway Points This case highlights the importance of accurately reflecting the terms that have been agreed between the parties on termination of employment (both those agreed verbally and in writing). Where it is proposed that discretion be exercised contrary to default terms of a company scheme, in this case a share option scheme, ensure authority is obtained in advance from the appropriate person(s) and that effect will be given to formally exercise the commitment. 
It is also important for businesses to be aware that any representations or assurances given by members of the senior management team could, subsequently, be relied on by an employee. 

If you’d like advice tailored to your situation, contact Nicola Cockerill on 0800 915 7777 or email nc@kilgannonlaw.co.uk .

< Older Post Newer Post >

Recent Posts

Three coworkers reviewing documents at a table in a bright office

Fire and rehire restrictions: what employers need to know ahead of January 2027

By Anthony Thompson • October 22, 2026
New fire and rehire restrictions are expected in January 2027. Discover which contractual changes are affected and how employers can prepare.
Two coworkers reviewing documents at a table with a laptop in a bright office, one pointing thoughtfully

What are the Key Areas Likely to be Impacted by these changes and What Steps Can Employers Take to Prepare for them?

By Nicola Cockerill • October 20, 2026
Explore key employment law changes, the areas they may affect and practical steps employers can take to prepare their business and HR policies.
Three coworkers in a meeting, discussing ideas around a laptop at a conference table.

Unfair Dismissal changes from 1 January 2027: What employers need to do now

September 25, 2026
From 1 January 2027 unfair dismissal protection moves to six months and the compensation cap is removed. See what employers should change now.
Two people talking in a modern office lounge, seated across from each other and holding papers.

The (re)introduction of third-party harassment from 30 October 2026. What the duty means for employers.

September 25, 2026
From 30 October 2026, employers face liability for third-party harassment. Find out what changes and the practical steps businesses should take now.
Three coworkers in discussion at a conference table with a laptop and mugs in a modern office

Employment Rights Act 2025: What the new Sexual Harassment duty means for employers from 30 October 2026

September 25, 2026
From 30 October 2026 employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and address third-party harassment. See what to do now.
A person in a white lab coat and pink gloves holds a small rainbow heart pin, with a stethoscope draped around their neck.

Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?

February 3, 2026
Did the use of NHS changing room by transgender woman give rise to claims for harassment and/or indirect discrimination?
A person with long dark hair, wearing a green and orange patterned top, looks toward the camera against a black background.

Tribunal ruling puts ‘up or out’ employment policies under scrutiny

February 3, 2026
The appeal judgment criticised the original tribunal’s handling of both disability and justification issues. The judgment indicates that employers making dismissals based on assessment of readiness for promotion, without the employee having carried out the work for the role above, will struggle to show that decision is
A person smiling at the camera, wearing a green and orange patterned top against a dark, plain background.

Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal

January 19, 2026
Ms Sanju Pal succeeds in appeal against Accenture at the Employment Appeal Tribunal – Tribunal’s reasoning on disability discrimination due to endometriosis was “wholly inadequate” and the decision could not stand
Two hands wearing rainbow-colored bracelets come together to form a heart shape.

Non-binary identity does not give rise to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment

December 18, 2025
A tribunal ruled non-binary identity does not amount to gender reassignment. Learn the legal reasoning and workplace implications with Kilgannon Law.
The Houses of Parliament in London at dusk, with the illuminated Elizabeth Tower reflected in the River Thames.

The dismissal of a cleaner employed in two jobs working 17 hour days was fair

December 11, 2025
A tribunal has held that the dismissal of a cleaner working two jobs and 17-hour days was fair. Learn why the decision was upheld, the key factors considered, and what this means for employers managing fatigue and safety risks.
Show More