It's not unusual for banks to fire over-performers

Raphael Geys, the former European head of fixed income sales at SocGen is suing the bank after it allegedly dismissed him in order to avoid having to pay an 11.3m bonus under what appears to have been a profit sharing agreement.

Instead, SocGen offered Geys 7.1m in severance. He's miffed and is arguing that this was less than he was due.

The case has only just made it to the high court, even though Geys was made redundant from SocGen in November 2007 (having apparently been promoted in March.) He doesn't appear to have worked for another large institution since, and as far as we can deduce is currently an independent financial consultant based in Belgium.

Bizarrely, lawyers say it's not at all unusual for banks to eject high performers with large pay claims, even if they're making a profit for the firm.

"You'd think that banks would recognise that it's sensible to keep these people onboard," says Charles Ferguson, a solicitor who specialises in the representation of traders. "However, there are some banks where there's a limit to what they're willing to pay. If someone takes them above that, they'll look for an excuse to back out."

Most banks include clauses in their contracts specifying that you need to be in employment and not under notice at the bonus date in order to be eligible for a payment. As a result, redundancies in the run up to bonuses are abnormally common.

Equally, Ferguson says some contracts specify that profit sharing entitlements will disappear if salespeople or traders are sacked for gross incompetence. He says this is also a favourite reason for dismissal.

The strange SocGen clause

Geys' case is interesting because it suggests that SocGen offers profit sharing agreements, which seems unusual for a French bank.

SocGen also appears to have included a strange sounding clause in Geys' contract specifying that if he didn't accept the initial severance package and then sued the bank, he'd lose the right to any kind of payment at all.

Employment lawyers say this sounds frankly bizarre. "If the reason for making him redundant was to avoid payment or to persuade him to accept a lesser amount, and it wasn't a genuine redundancy, then it would seem that he has a strong argument and a legitimate right to complain," says Ronnie Fox of Fox Lawyers.

"The ability to claim against another party for breach of contract is a common law right," says Philip Landau of Landau Zeffertt Weir Solicitors.