LECTURE 5Contract of employment \u2013 Implied Terms<\/p>\n
Pitt (9th edn) pp 142-161
\nMEANS OF IMPLICATION
\n(i) The Officious bystander test
\nShirlaw v Southern Foundries (1939) [1939] 2 KB 206 (CA)<\/p>\n
MacKinnon, LJ (227): \u2018Prima facie that which in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes without saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common \u201cOh, but of course!\u201d\u2019<\/p>\n
(ii) The business efficacy test
\nThe Moorcock (1889) 14 P.D. 64; [1886-90] All ER 530 (CA)<\/p>\n
See discussion by Pitt (9th edn) 4.016.<\/p>\n
EMPLOYER\u2019S DUTIES<\/p>\n
To Provide Work
\nCollier v Sunday Referee Publishing [1940] 2 KB 647 (B, 650 (Asquith, J):<\/p>\n
\u2018Provided I pay my cook her wages regularly, she cannot complain if I choose to take any or all of my meals out. In some exceptional cases there is an obligation to provide work. For instance, where the servant is remunerated by commission, or where (as in the case of an actor or singer) the servant bargains, among other things, for publicity, and the master, by withholding work, also withholds the stipulated publicity:\u2019
\n(i) Piecework\/commission<\/p>\n
Devonald v Rosser [1906] 2 KB 728 (CA); Turner v Goldsmith [1891] 1 KB 544 (CA) (ii) Reputation<\/p>\n
Clayton & Waller v Oliver [1930] AC 209 (HL) (iii) To maintain skills <\/p>\n
William Hill v Tucker [1999] ICR 291 (CA)<\/p>\n
Privacy<\/p>\n
Data protection Act 1998 (in force March 2000) provides that employers may only keep relevant records and must not generally disclose them. Covers computer and manual records.<\/p>\n
Regulation and Investigatory Powers Act 2000
\nHalford v UK (1997) 24 ECRR 523
\nCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
LECTURE 5Contract of employment \u2013 Implied Terms Pitt (9th edn) pp 142-161 MEANS OF IMPLICATION (i) The Officious bystander test Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1939) [1939] 2 KB 206 (CA) MacKinnon, LJ (227): \u2018Prima facie that which in any contract Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94244","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94244"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94244\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}