Facts:The defendant was the UK subsidiary of a US corporation engaged in the manufacture and supply of automotive parts in, amongst other places, the Far East. The claimant was employed by the defendant and its predecessor associated companies from September 1996 until his dismissal on 31 October 2005. During that period, the claimant worked for the companies in a variety of locations in the Far East.The claimant claimed:(i)that from 1 June 2001 his salary was £161,000 and thereafter, although his salary increased from time to time, both his salary and other benefits were always payable in sterling; sterling was throughout the currency of the contract. The defendant in fact paid him in US dollars. As a result of payment in dollars and the increasingly adverse exchange rate between sterling and the dollar, as against his contractual entitlement, he was underpaid from June 2001 to his dismissal and he was entitled to be paid the shortfall; and (ii) that as a result of his June 2001 contract, hewas entitled to be admitted to a particularly attractive company pension scheme backdated to 1 September 1996, or alternatively be provided with equivalent benefits, and he claimed the value of those benefits. The Court held that the claimant had accepted variations to his June 2001 contract such that he had no entitlement to be paid in sterling and that he had compromised his claim to pension provision.