‘A number of principles relevant to the application of the doctrine to contracts of employment can be derived from these decisions which, in any event, are rare occurrences in the realm of employment law.
First, that the court must guard against too easy an application of the doctrine, more especially when redundancy occurs and also when the true situation may be a dismissal by reason of disability. Secondly, that although it is not necessary to decide that frustration occurred on a particular date, nevertheless an attempt to decide the relevant date is far from a useless exercise as it may help to determine in the mind of the court whether it really is a true frustration situation. Thirdly, that there are a number of factors which may help to decide the issue as they may each point in one or other direction. ‘ (reference to Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Ltd . . . To these we would add the terms of the contract as to the provisions for sickness pay, if any, and also, a consideration of the prospects of recovery. Fourthly – see F C Shepherd and Co Ltd v. Jerrom [1986] I.C.R. 802 – the party alleging frustration should not be allowed to rely upon the frustrating event if that event was caused by that party – at least where it was caused by its fault.’
Judges:
President Sir John Wood
Citations:
[1990] ICR 536
Citing:
Cited – Egg Stores (Stamford Hill) Limited v Leibovici EAT 1977
Referring to the test set out in Marshall: ‘That is helpful, but one needs to know in what kind of circumstances can it be said that further performance of his obligations in the future will be possible? It seems to us that an important question to . .
Cited by:
Cited – James v The Greytree Trust EAT 17-Jan-1996
The tribunal was asked whether, due to incapacity, an employee has been dismissed, or his contract of employment frustrated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.221580