Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth

Last updated
Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth
Court Court of Appeal
Citation(s)[1994] ICR 727
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Ralph Gibson LJ, Staughton LJ
Keywords
Wrongful dismissal

Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth [1994] ICR 727 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.

Contents

Facts

Mr Boyo was an accountant for Lambeth London Borough Council until suspended and dismissed as the police charged him with fraud. His contract said he would only be dismissed after an investigation and consideration of allegations of gross misconduct, but the council did nothing because it did not want to interfere with the police investigation or prosecution. It initially claimed frustration but then admitted wrongful dismissal.

First instance awarded six months' wages, for one month notice and a five month disciplinary. Mr Boyo claimed damages for salary loss up to trial date, when he accepted the repudiatory breach of contract.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that while the employer did not unilaterally terminate the contract, the employer was liable to pay compensation up to the time when it could lawfully unilaterally terminate. This meant the time for giving proper notice plus disciplinary time.

Ralph Gibson LJ said he was bound to follow Gunton in that an employer's repudiatory breach would only terminate the contract when accepted by the employee, but preferred a partial survival theory.

Staughton LJ said that an employment contract is ‘in a class of its own’ because neither an employee nor an employer should be compelled to work together.

Sir Francis Purchas concurred.

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.

    In United Kingdom law, the concept of wrongful dismissal refers exclusively to dismissal contrary to the contract of employment, which effectively means premature termination, either due to insufficient notice or lack of grounds. Although wrongful dismissal is usually associated with lack of notice sometimes it can also be caused by arbitrary dismissal where no notice was required but certain grounds were specified in the contract as being the only ones available but none existed.

    Unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom is the part of UK labour law that requires fair, just and reasonable treatment by employers in cases where a person's job could be terminated. The Employment Rights Act 1996 regulates this by saying that employees are entitled to a fair reason before being dismissed, based on their capability to do the job, their conduct, whether their position is economically redundant, on grounds of a statute, or some other substantial reason. It is automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee, regardless of length of service, for becoming pregnant, or for having previously asserted certain specified employment rights. Otherwise, an employee must have worked for two years. This means an employer only terminates an employee's job lawfully if the employer follows a fair procedure, acts reasonably and has a fair reason.

    A severance package is pay and benefits that employees may be entitled to receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:

    Employment Rights Act 1996 United Kingdom Law

    The Employment Rights Act 1996 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament passed by the Conservative government to codify existing law on individual rights in UK labour law.

    Employment Relations Act 2000

    The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.

    <i>Wilson v Racher</i> UK labour law case concerning constructive dismissal

    Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428 is a UK labour law case concerning constructive dismissal. It serves as an example of an employer being found to have wrongfully dismissed an employee, because of the employer's own bad behaviour. Edmund-Davies LJ also made an important statement about the modern employment relationship,

    What would today be regarded as almost an attitude of Czar-serf, which is to be found in some of the older cases where a dismissed employee failed to recover damages, would, I venture to think, be decided differently today. We have by now come to realise that a contract of service imposes upon the parties a duty of mutual respect.

    <i>Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw</i>

    Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts. In the field of company law, it is known primarily to stand for the principle that damages may be sought for breach of contract by a director even though a contract may de facto constrain the exercise of powers to sack people found in the company's constitution.

    Johnson v Unisys Limited [2001] UKHL 13 is a leading UK labour law case on the measure of damages for unfair dismissal and the nature of the contract of employment.

    <i>Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp</i>

    Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] ICR 221 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    <i>Gisda Cyf v Barratt</i>

    Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

    Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35 is a UK labour law case concerning damages for wrongful dismissal, which were held to not be limited if a breach of contract occurs during the performance of the contract, rather than at the point of termination.

    <i>Rigby v Ferodo Ltd</i>

    Rigby v Ferodo Ltd [1988] ICR 29 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that if an employer reduces wages without a worker's consent, the worker may continue to work and claim the shortfall.

    In law, wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a situation in which an employee's contract of employment has been terminated by the employer, where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision or rule in employment law. Laws governing wrongful dismissal vary according to the terms of the employment contract, as well as under the laws and public policies of the jurisdiction.

    <i>Reda v Flag Ltd</i>

    Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 is a case from Bermuda law, advised upon by the Privy Council, that is relevant for UK labour law and UK company law concerning the dismissal of a director.

    Gunton v Richmond upon Thames LBC [1980] ICR 755 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.

    <i>Société Générale, London Branch v Geys</i> United Kingdom labour law case

    Société Générale, London Branch v Geys [2012] UKSC 63 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal. The Supreme Court's decision was a significant ruling in regard to the competing automatic and elective theories of contractual repudiation.

    <i>Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd</i>

    Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.

    <i>Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust</i>

    Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence[2011] UKSC 58 is a UK labour law case, concerning wrongful dismissal.

    <i>Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council</i>

    Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council[1987] UKHL 15 is a UK labour law case, concerning the theory of partial performance and strike action. Its authority has been questioned since.

    References