ut there were factors which contributed to this, which were

not in dispute:

(i) that the New York figures were low when business
had been poor;

(ii) expensive fixed remuneration for ‘star’ brokers had

been set in an attempt to improve the profitability.

Mr Amaitis would not have ignored these factors.

94. The travel and expenses were over 4% but so were

other desks. The other desks where bonuses were paid
were not invariably achieving the strict letter of the criteria.
Indeed the criteria were not fixed (as with the reduction in
fixed salary) and the purpose of the bonus was to create an
incentive without losing the disciplinary control which it
could have. In my judgment the claimant would have
received a discretionary bonus [assessed by the judge as
£180,000 for year 2000].

95. I reject the submission that had Mr Horkulak not been

constructively dismissed he would have been dismissed
within about three months after June 2000. Had Cantor not
breached the contract of employment the capacity of the
claimant to perform was not sufficiently affected by alcohol
or cocaine so as to render him unfit for work. His excessive
use of alcohol had a long history and he had, when
necessary, taken steps to reduce it by seeing his doctor and
a consultant. Even after the treatment he had received at
the hands of Mr Amaitis in 2000 his condition as recorded
by the Priory Hospital did not disclose a dependence equal
to the 1999 level when he had managed to maintain his
position and achieve promotion.”

1. In relation to the year 2001, the judge stated as follows:

“96.The claimant maintains that his remuneration package

for 2001 would have been in the region of £900,000. In
reaching this figure he urges that account should be taken of
the total package of remuneration received by other senior
managing directors, including any bonus in partnership
units and share options. Where awarded, a discretionary
bonus could be paid in partnership units. Other managers
received housing and car allowances. I approach the
figures by reference to the likely outcome from a fair and
rational exercise of discretion and the expectation,
engendered by his promotion to a senior level, that his
remuneration would be substantially larger from year to
year.
97.I do not accept that there is sufficient evidence to
assume that h