Crank v HMSO: EAT 1985

The tribunal considered whether the parties had initially agreed a date for the termination of the employment: ‘In the present case it is a striking feature that it was the employee who himself suggested and asked agreement for 2 September 1983 as being the date from which his resignation was to take effect, and the employer’s agreed to that. We think it is clear therefore that both sides intended that the contract should be terminated as of 2 September. Why, in those circumstances, should one not treat the effective date of termination, for the purposes of the statute, as being 2 September? Of course it is right that on the 13 September (to select one date by way of example) the contract of employment was still subsisting, but the position that we have to consider is that which has arisen in the light of the agreement between the parties. We think that the common sense answer to the question ‘When was the effective date of termination?’ is that which the industrial tribunal reached. Both parties were therefore bound and we can see no sufficient justification to give the wording of the statute a special meaning so as to treat the termination as not having taken effect until a date later than that which the employee and the employers had agreed was the date of termination.’


Peter Gibson J


[1985] ICR 1


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury CA 17-Feb-2004
The parties had been in negotiations, attempting to settle a proposed action for unfair dismissal. They agreed to fix the effective date of determination at a certain date, but this was after the date fixed by the statute. The action was begun . .
AffirmedLambert v Croydon College EAT 19-Nov-1998
Crank was rightly decided, notwithstanding a fresh argument that it offended against section 203 by in effect sanctioning contracting out of the Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194275