Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions - law index

These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The site includes many later cases.  

Employment - From: 1900 To: 1929

This page lists 26 cases, and was prepared on 03 May 2015.

Inman -v- Ackroyd [1901] 1 QB 613


Apportionment Act 1870
1 Citers

Dowden & Pook Ltd -v- Pook [1904] 1 KB 45
Collins MR
When an employment covenant is unlimited, the covenant cannot be rewritten to limit its territorial extent.
1 Citers

 Allison -v- Alison's Trustees; 1904 - (1904) 6 F 496
Edmundson -v- Render [1905] 2 Ch 320

Buckley J
Employment, Legal Professions
The court considered a suggestion that a solicitor was not in breach of a non-compete clause promising to refrain from practising within a certain area where the work was carried out from an office outside the area: "The other [class of case] which I think would be equally a breach, is as follows. Suppose a client residing within the prohibited area comes to Harrogate to consult the solicitor, and the solicitor, after taking time to consider the matter, advises him by letter sent to him at his address within the prohibited area, is he acting as solicitor within the area? In my opinion he is. It does not matter whether he goes in person to the man 's house and says 'I advise you' so and so, or whether he writes him a letter and says, 'I advise you' so and so."
1 Citers

 Ellis -v- Joseph Ellis & Co; CA 1905 - [1905] 1 KB 324
Earl -v- Lubbock [1905] 1 KB 253
Sir Richard Henn Collins MR, Stirling LJ, Mathew LJ
Negligence, Employment
The plaintiff was injured when a wheel came off a van which he was driving for his employer, and which it was the duty of the defendant, under contract with the employer, to keep in repair. The county court judge and the Divisional Court both hold that, even if negligence was proved, the action would not lie. Held: The defendant was under no duty to the plaintiff and that there was no cause of action. Matthew LJ: "The argument of counsel for the plaintiff was that the defendant's servants had been negligent in the performance of the contract with the owners of the van, and that it followed as a, matter of law that anyone in their employment, or, indeed, anyone else who sustained an injury traceable to that negligence, had a cause of action against the defendant. It is impossible to accept such a wide proposition, and, indeed, it is difficult to see how, if it were the law, trade could be carried on. No prudent man would contract to make or repair what the employer intended to permit others to use in the way of his trade."
1 Cites

1 Citers

Clouston and Company Limited -v- Corry [1905] UKPC 70; [1906] AC 122
1 Dec 1905

Commonwealth, Employment
(New Zealand)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
Devonald -v- Rosser [1906] 2 KB 728

An employer's failure to provide a reasonable amount of work, barring force majeure, is a breach of the contract of employment.
1 Citers

 A Mactaggart & Co -v- Harrower; SCS 20-Jul-1906 - [1906] ScotCS CSIH_1

 General Billposting Company Limited -v- Atkinson; HL 1908 - [1909] AC 118; (1908) 1 Ch 537; [1908-1910] All ER 619; (1908) 25 TLR 178

 Tomalin -v- S Pearson and Son Ltd; CA 1909 - [1909] 2 KB 61

 Addis -v- Gramophone Company Limited; HL 26-Jul-1909 - [1909] AC 488; [1909] UKHL 1

 Kirkby -v- Taylor; 1910 - [1910] 1 KB 529

 Re National Insurance Act 1911: Re Employment of Church of England Curates; 1912 - [1912] 2 Ch 563
Steggall -v- Lymburner (1912) 14 WALR 201

McMillan J
Employment, Contract
The defendant deducted from the wages of an employee, either at his request or by his consent, the amount of a debt due by the employee to the plaintiffs, and promised the plaintiffs to pay the amount to them. Held: "The contention on the part of the defendant before the magistrate was that his promise to pay was a promise to pay a debt of another person and, therefore, was not actionable, as there was no evidence in writing. In answer to that it is said that the Statute of Frauds has nothing to do with the case, and that the promise of the defendant is not to discharge the debt of another person, but a promise to pay his own debt. In Leake on Contracts, 5th edition, p.839, it is stated 'the contract or promise of the debtor to pay according to the order or assignment of his creditor is a promise to pay his own debt, although it operates in discharge of the debt of his creditor. It is, therefore, not a promise to pay the debt of another within the Statute of Frauds, and does not require written evidence.'" Burnside J agreed, describing it as "a very simple case".

 Vacher & Sons Ltd -v- London Society of Compositors; HL 18-Nov-1912 - [1912] UKHL 3; [1913] AC 107

 Mason -v- Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd; 1913 - [1913] AC 724

 Amber Size and Chemical Co Ltd -v- Menzel; 1913 - [1913] 2 Ch 239

 Scottish Insurance Commissioners -v- Church of Scotland; SCS 18-Oct-1913 - [1913] ScotCS CSIH_3; (1914) SC 16

 Scottish Insurance Commissioners -v- Church of Scotland; CS 1914 - 1914 SC 16

 Herbert Morris Ltd -v- Saxelby; HL 1916 - [1916] 1 AC 688; [1916-17] All ER 305

 Attwood -v- Lamont; 1920 - [1920] 3 KB 571

 Great Western Railway Co -v- Bater; 1920 - [1920] 3 KB 266
Fitch -v- Dewes [1921] 2 AC 158
Lord Birkenhead LC
An assistant solicitor had already worked for his employer in humbler status for many years when, aged 27, he signed a covenant restricting his acting in competition with his employer within seven miles of Tamworth Town Hall for an unlimited time. He complained of the temporal restriction. Held: "What are the facts here? A boy of the age of 14 is taken from a humble employment in the office of the local co-operative society and he is trained in the office of a solicitor of position in this particular neighbourhood . . . Indeed I am of the opinion that it is in the public interest that a proper restrictive agreement of this kind between an established solicitor, possibly an elderly man, and a younger man should be allowed. It is in the public interest because otherwise solicitors carrying on their business without a partner would be extremely chary of admitting competent young men to their offices and to the confidential knowledge to be derived by frequenting those offices."
1 Citers

 Waterman -v- Fryer; 1922 - [1922] 1 KB 499

 Holland -v- London Society of Compositors and Another; 1924 - 1924 Times LR 440
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.