Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc

Last updated

Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case nameEastwood v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall CC
Decided15 July 2004
Citation(s)[2004] UKHL 35, [2004] IRLR 732
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Keywords
Wrongful dismissal

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.

Contents

Facts

Mr Eastwood and Mr Williams, who supported Mr Eastwood in internal investigations, were victimised by the managers at Magnox Electric plc (where Mr Eastwood and Mr Williams were employed) and then sacked after false sexual harassment disciplinaries. They came to an unfair dismissal settlement and then claimed further for wrongful dismissal and damages for psychiatric illness because of breach of good faith.

The case was joined with Mr McCabe's claim, who had succeeded in an unfair dismissal claim on grounds that indecent behaviour towards school pupils was never demonstrated, he was not informed of the allegations for 5 months, and the council failed to investigate his case, and then he claimed further for psychiatric illness.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal in Eastwood dismissed the appeal, but a different court in McCabe allowed the appeal.

Auld LJ, in McCabe, held that Gogay was distinguishable from Johnson because in Gogay damages related to dismissal but suspension ‘which manifestly contemplated the continuation of the employment relationship’. It was a question of fact whether the manner of dismissal is confined to events at the same time as or just before the actual dismissal. And ‘should the line be drawn between dismissal caught by legislation and conduct prior to it causing injury compensatable in damages at common law.’

House of Lords

The House of Lords awarded remedies for the employees in both cases. Although damages could not be claimed for any fault relating to the dismissal itself without reform through a statutory code, they could be claimed for breach of terms while the employment relationship subsisted.

Lord Nicholls said that the ‘Johnson exclusion area’ was grave. ‘This situation merits urgent attention by the government and legislature.’

Lord Steyn noted that the more outrageous the breach, the less likely it is that the employee can affirm the contract.

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.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

    English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment Rights Act 1996</span> 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.

    <i>Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

    Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd, 1997 CanLII 332, [1997] 3 SCR 701 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian employment law, particularly in determining damages arising from claims concerning wrongful dismissal.

    <i>Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd</i>

    Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 is an old English contract law and UK labour law case, which used to restrict damages for non-pecuniary losses for breach of contract.

    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>Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp</i>

    Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 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.

    <i>Muschett v HM Prison Service</i>

    Muschett v H M Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 is a UK labour law case, which held that an agency worker had no right to claim discrimination from either the agency or the place of work.

    <i>Honda Canada Inc v Keays</i> Canadian Supreme Court employment law case

    Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39, [2008] 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has had significant impact in Canadian employment law, in that it reformed the manner in which damages are to be awarded in cases of wrongful dismissal and it declared that such awards were not affected by the type of position an employee may have had.

    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.

    <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, affirming the elective theory.

    Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth [1994] ICR 727 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>Spring v Guardian Assurance plc</i> United Kingdom labour law court case

    Spring v Guardian Assurance plc[1994] UKHL 7, [1995] 2 AC 296 is a UK labour law and English tort law case, concerning the duty to provide accurate information when writing an employee reference.

    <i>Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

    Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

    References