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 .

Recent Posts

A person in a white lab coat and pink gloves holds a small rainbow heart pin, with a stethoscope draped around their neck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Two professionals in business attire discuss work at a desk with a laptop and documents.
By Dominic Holmes November 10, 2025
From 1 December 2025, ACAS early conciliation will double to 12 weeks. Discover what this change means, how it affects tribunal time limits and backlogs, and why more time may not always benefit employees or employers.
A person in a black suit sits at a white desk with their hands clasped next to a white coffee mug.
By GERARD AIREY September 1, 2025
Analysis of Sanju Pal v Accenture UK Ltd: appeal on endometriosis, consulting model, and Category A classification in the EAT, 9–10 Dec 2025.
Hands resting on a wooden desk, using a calculator next to bank checks, cash, and glasses.
March 31, 2025
A full time employee that is over 21 will soon be earning nearly £24,000 per annum which could mean that more employees are close to the minimum wage. Having an employee working close to the minimum wage poses risks to businesses. For example, if an employee works any overtime, they may then fall below the minimum wage.
A woman in a dark blazer writes at a desk in an office with two colleagues working in the background.
January 13, 2025
Kilgannon & Partners outlines key steps to comply with the new UK duty to prevent workplace sexual harassment. Services include risk assessments, policy updates, staff training, and confidential reporting. Contact us for support.
A hand holds a rectangular teal sign with the word
December 16, 2024
The UK Home Office has expanded its sponsor licence priority services to offer greater flexibility and faster processing for prospective and current sponsors of migrant workers. Removal of the Pre-Licence Priority Service Cap Previously, the Home Office limited the number of daily applications for its pre-licence priority service to 30. This daily cap has now been removed. The pre-licence priority service is designed for organisations that have applied for a sponsor licence and seek to bring skilled workers to the UK more swiftly. By paying a £500 fee, applicants can reduce their waiting time from approximately eight weeks to around ten working days.
Show More