Time to sue?

Will 2007 be a fortuitous year for anyone looking to sue over a measly bonus? Yes, says one lawyer. No, says another.

Yes - if you've just lost your job

"Banks are nervous about cases that are in the pipeline," says Jane Mann, head of employment law at solicitors Fox Williams. "They may be more willing to settle out of court than in the past."

The twitchiness applies particularly to employees who've received a small (or non-existent) bonus after losing their jobs. Until recently, Mann says, redundant bankers had no legal remedy for a stunted bonus - thanks largely to a clause in employment contracts stating that you have to be 'in employment on the bonus payment date and not under notice, given or received', to get paid.

However, a case involving a Mr Takacs, who worked for Barclays Services Jersey, could spell the end of this clause. Takacs was axed before receiving a bonus and is arguing (among other things) that his employer owes him nonetheless. The case is set to be heard in full by the High Court some time in 2007. Mann says the outcome looks set to favour employees - which explains why banks are so nervous.

No - if you're trying to bring a discrimination claim

On the other hand, it seems discrimination cases have become harder to win.

James Davies, an employment partner at law firm Lewis Silkin, says banks are getting more savvy when it comes to shifting the burden of proof in discrimination cases to employees.

"The starting point is always that the claimant has to prove they have been discriminated against, but where there might have been discrimination, it then becomes up to the employer to prove they didn't discriminate in those particular circumstances."

In the past, Davies says, employees could often point to the likes of lewd or inappropriate comments as evidence that discrimination just might have taken place. These days, he says, banks can point to diversity training programmes as evidence of how PC they are.

As a result, bankers bringing discrimination claims are increasingly expected to prove they've been discriminated against (rather than the bank having to prove that it didn't discriminate), which can be harder said than done.