← Back to case studies
Case law
Mason v FD Copeland & Sons Ltd

Being suspended doesn’t mean your employer can withhold your bonus without a good reason.

The ruling

“Tribunal found withholding his bonus during suspension was irrational; awarded bonus plus interest.”

A bonus described as "entirely discretionary" still has to be handled rationally and fairly, especially during a suspension.

  • If you're suspended, check exactly what your suspension letter says about your pay and benefits, and hold your employer to it.
  • Don't assume a "discretionary" bonus clause lets your employer withhold it for any reason. Ask your employer to put the reason in writing, then check it against what your contract actually allows.
  • If you think you may have any kind of employment claim, get advice now. Deadlines are short and strict, and missing one can lose you a claim that would otherwise have won.
Read the full case

The situation

An employee at a manufacturing company was suspended after a colleague raised a complaint against him, pending an independent investigation. His suspension letter said the suspension was not disciplinary action, and that he would keep his normal contractual benefits. That same day, the company decided to withhold his annual bonus, a bonus his contract described as "entirely at the discretion of the company", because of the ongoing allegations. He had received that bonus every year for 37 years, and there had been no performance concerns for the year it covered.

What the tribunal found

The tribunal held that even a bonus described as entirely discretionary is not an unlimited power. An employer using that discretion has to act rationally: it cannot ignore relevant facts or take irrelevant ones into account. Withholding this bonus was irrational and perverse. The contract only excluded bonus entitlement for someone who had left the company or was under notice, not someone suspended pending an investigation. The suspension itself had been described as a "neutral act" that did not affect normal contractual benefits, and the investigation into the allegations against him had not yet concluded. He was awarded the bonus, plus interest.

A related claim for unlawful deduction of wages over the same bonus failed, because the amount had not been declared or worked out at the time, so it was not yet "wages properly payable". This was one narrow win in an otherwise largely unsuccessful case. His unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and most discrimination claims all failed. One sex discrimination claim, over being refused a return to his pre-pandemic working hours, would have succeeded on its own merits, but he brought it almost three years too late, so under the Equality Act 2010 it was dismissed as out of time.

Full citation

Mason v FD Copeland & Sons Ltd. Case Nos. 2306528/2023 and 2303830/2024. Employment Tribunal (London South). 12 June 2026.

Last reviewed 20 July 2026