Stringer LLP (in their First Reference post “Generous termination clauses: Think twice before making promises“) note the dangers in contract language ambiguity: it is a weak spot which will invite litigation and result in judicial intervention.  In Holmes v Hatch Ltd.  it was the word “appropriate”.  Stringer LLP’s takeaway is accurate:

“Employers may choose to provide for more than the statutory minimums when drafting termination clauses for a variety of reasons. However, they should be aware that failing to provide compensation in accordance with these clauses could leave them exposed to liability under the common law, which can be significant. Employers should consult with employment law counsel when drafting termination clauses to ensure that they are promising what they intend to promise, and not more.”