Crossley v Faithfull and Gould Holdings Ltd: CA 16 Mar 2004

The employee claimant was to retire. On his employer’s negligent advice he resigned and opted for discretionary benefits.
Held: The employer owed no general duty of care to an employee’s financial interests. Nor could a term requiring such a standard of care be implied within the contract. Rather than focus upon necessity, it was better to before such a standard term could be implied, the court should assess its reasonableness, fairness, and the appropriate balance between employer and employee. Given that the House of Lords had recently refused to introduce such a substantial implied term, it would be wrong for the Court of Appeal to do so.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Dyson LJ, Thomas LJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 293, Times 29-Mar-2004, Gazette 08-Apr-2004
England and Wales
CitedScally v Southern Health and Social Services Board HL 1991
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to . .
CitedSpring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .

Cited by:
CitedJames-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.196573