BL-2023-001505 - [2025] EWHC 2156 (Ch)

I am unable to find that the defendant in fact exercised its power under rule 7.1 of the Plan to extend the claimant’s options beyond the cessation of his employment. The claim that he validly exercised those options depends upon such an exercise having taken place, and must accordingly fail.

For the reasons given above, however, I find that the defendant assured Mr Dixon that his options would continue to be exercisable following the end of his employment on the same footing as if he remained in his employment, in a similar manner to how they continued to be exercisable by other former employees. Mr Dixon relied on that assurance to his detriment and I consider both that the assurance was of a proprietary interest to which equity can give effect through a proprietary estoppel, and that it is unconscionable for the defendant to repudiate its assurance. The question of remedy is one which will be dealt with as a consequential matter at a hearing.