A colliery deputy was in breach of contract by refusing over several months to work on Saturdays. His refusal was part of wider industrial action involving several other deputies. Although the combined effect of the refusal to work by the defendant and the other deputies was that no productive work was possible at the colliery on a Saturday for some two months until the plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining substitute deputies at a cost of andpound;3 18s 2d for each substitute per Saturday shift and the plaintiffs suffered a loss of production of nearly andpound;4,000 until the substitute deputies were obtained.
Held: It could not be shown that the plaintiffs’ loss of production had been caused or contributed to by the defendant’s breach of contract. As a deputy, he would not have worked at a coal face even if he had presented himself for work on the Saturdays. The proper measure of damages where a person agrees to take up emplyment, but then does not, is the cost of finding a replacement.
Pearce LJ said: ‘How then can it be said that loss of output is any measure of his liability?’
the failure of the plaintiffs to prove that they had suffered any consequent financial loss in the form of loss of profits as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract was not held by the Court of Appeal to dis-entitle them from recovering damages for the loss they suffered as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract. The measure of the pkaintiff’s loss was the value to the plaintiffs of the work which the defendant was contracted to but failed to provide: ‘The last point which arises concerns the measure of damages. The learned judge found that the plaintiffs had proved a loss of profit of andpound;535 due to the impossibility of working the Saturday voluntary shift on June 16 1956. He then went on to hold that the defendant and others – namely all the deputies and shotfirers concerned with the loss – should be treated as being responsible for that loss and that the defendant was liable to the plaintiffs for his share . . What then is the measure of damages in this particular case? If the defendant alone and on his own initative had failed to work the Saturday voluntary shift on June 16 the measure of damages would have been the net value to the plaintiffs of the work which he would have performed if he had worked that shift as he ought to have done . . The question still is: What loss of output did the absence of the particular deputy charged with breach of his contract entail? The question in each case must be: What would his services have contributed to the net value of the output of the shift if the deputy concered had duly worked it? That is in each case a question of fact. In the present case, though the defendant was undoubtedly acting in concert with others, it is not shown that his breach contributed to the loss. He would not, as we understand it, have worked at a coal face, but would have been doing safety work. How then can it be said that loss of output is in any measure of his liability? In these circumstances we do not think it can be said that any damages has been proved against him beyond the cost of a substitute, say andpound;318s 2d.’
Judges:
Pearce LJ
Citations:
[1958] 1 WLR 16, [1958] 1 All ER 91
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Strathclyde Regional Council v Neil SCSf 1984
The claimant was taken on as a trainee social worker, on condition that she obtain a place on a social work course. She was to receive paid leave to attend. Her contract provided that she was to work for the Council for two years after completing . .
Cited – George v The Ministry of Justice CA 17-Apr-2013
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim that the respondent had broken his contract of employment as a prison officer by changing the collective agreement for prisons officers. The judge had found that the respective terms were not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Employment
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.282599
