There was overwhelming evidence justifying the conclusion that the bonus promises made to the bankers were intended to be legally binding, Justice Patrick Elias said in a ruling in London Friday.
Bloomberg reports that Commerzbank, which reduced bonuses by 90% after taking over Dresdner in 2009, argued an $8.45bn loss at the unit justified the move, even though Dresdner executives promised employees the previous year money would be set aside for compensation.
Andreas White, Employment Law Partner, Kingsley Napley LLP says: 'Given the huge sums at stake, Commerzbank is bound to attempt an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Bank's patience with employment litigation may be wearing thin.
'Earlier this month the Employment Tribunal ruled it had breached the Equality Act by sacking a trader who failed to mention at interview that she was suing her previous employer, Deutsche Bank, for discrimination.
'Reports suggest she is claiming $20m in compensation, but that is small beer compared to the bonus pool in dispute here. This is not necessarily the end of the road.
'Earlier in this litigation the High Court ruled that the claims based on the original 'Town Hall' announcement of the guaranteed minimum bonus pool had no realistic chance of success. The possibility of a successful appeal to the Supreme Court cannot be ruled out altogether'.