Topics

Contracts of employment

New and updated

  • Date:
    9 May 1990
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Frustration and long-term illness

    The doctrine of frustration should be severely limited in its scope when applied to employment contracts says the EAT in Williams v Watsons Luxury Coaches Ltd.

  • Date:
    5 December 1989
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Relocation - implied terms

    In United Bank Ltd v Akhtar, the EAT holds that it was necessary for certain terms to be implied into a contract of employment in order for the employee to be in a position to comply with a relocation clause.

  • Date:
    11 July 1989
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Pay and the employment contract: Employer need not pay for partial performance

    An employee who is not ready and willing to perform all of his duties under his contract of employment is not entitled to be paid at all rules the Court of Appeal in Wiluszynski v London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

  • Date:
    21 February 1989
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Restraining employee competition during the notice period

    In Provident Financial Group plc and Whitegates Estate Agency Ltd v Hayward the Court of Appeal upholds a judge's refusal to grant an injunction to restrain the group's former finance director from joining a competitor before his notice period had expired.

  • Date:
    31 December 1988
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd

    In Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 348 CA, the Court of Appeal held that if a contract contains an unusual or onerous term of which the other party is likely to be unaware, then the party trying to enforce that term must show that reasonable steps have been taken to bring that term to the notice of the other party.

  • Date:
    29 November 1988
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Industrial action: Mere presence of pickets can be inducement to breach contract

    In Union Traffic Ltd v Transport and General Workers' Union and others, the Court of Appeal holds that, in certain circumstances, the mere presence of pickets can constitute an inducement of those seeking to cross the picket line to break their contracts of employment and so be unlawful.

  • Date:
    1 November 1988
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    MacPherson v London Borough of Lambeth

    In MacPherson v London Borough of Lambeth [1988] IRLR 470 HC, the High Court held that the refusal of the employees to operate new equipment was in breach of their contracts and the employees were not entitled to an interlocutory order directing the council to pay arrears of salary.

  • Date:
    17 November 1987
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Lords uphold claim for full loss

    In Rigby v Ferodo Ltd the House of Lords confirms that employees whose wages are reduced without their consent are entitled to claim the full amount of their continuing loss, and are not limited to a claim for the loss suffered during their notice period.

  • Date:
    18 August 1987
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Confidentiality clause valid

    In Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Smyth the High Court in Northern Ireland holds that a restrictive covenant which was signed by an employee in the course of employment was binding in law. The court further holds that the confidentiality clause should not be regarded as void for being In restraint of trade even though the restriction was world-wide and was to last for one year alter the employment ended.

  • Date:
    18 February 1986
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Contracts of employment: Damages for breach of a promise of employment

    Guided by ordinary contractual principles, the Northern Ireland High Court in Robert McDowell Gill and ors v Cape Contractors Ltd rules that the plaintiffs, who had given up secure employment to work for a new employer, were entitled to compensation when the new employer was subsequently unable to take them on. The court found that the employer's promise gave rise to a collateral contract between the parties which was enforceable by the plaintiffs.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to contracts of employment.