A recent decision by the House of Lords may have opened the door to higher claims for compensation from dismissed employees. Benjimin Burgher looks at the likely ramifications of the decision.
An employee who was summarily and wrongfully dismissed 12 days before his 55th birthday, albeit with 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, was in principle entitled to claim damages made up of the amount that he would have been paid but for the employer's repudiatory breach of his contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in Silvey v Pendragon plc.
In Harper v Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Outer House of the Court of Session grants an interim interdict prohibiting the employer from terminating an employee's contract of employment otherwise than in accordance with its contractual disciplinary procedures.
In London Borough of Southwark v Mungul, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal erred in law by holding that a fundamental breach of contract invariably leads to a dismissal as a matter of course.
A former member of the intelligence services, who wrote and published his autobiography in breach of a contractual undertaking of non-disclosure, could be ordered to account for the remainder of the profits owed to him by his publishing house, holds the House of Lords in Attorney General v Blake.
The suspension of a care worker in a children's home by her local authority employer, pending the outcome of an investigation into an allegation of child sexual abuse, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in her contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council.
A contractual discretion whether or not to award an equity trader any, and if so what, bonus, which was "dependent upon individual performance", was one that had to be exercised both by reference to an assessment of performance of the trader's contract and not irrationally or perversely, holds the High Court in Clark v Nomura International plc.
A non-competition covenant that prevented a solicitor from working within a specified area for 12 months after he left the firm he worked for did not mean that he was prevented from doing any work at all, holds the Court of Appeal in Hollis & Co v Stocks.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to breach of contract.