Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


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














Employment - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 37 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Morison v Moat (1851) 9 Hare 241; [1851] EngR 790; (1851) 68 ER 492
20 Aug 1851

Sir George Turner VC
Employment, Information
A servant, Moat, sought to use a secret formula of his employer's. The plaintiff requested an injunction to restrain use of the formula. Held: The Vice Chancellor reiterated the principles, as to which he said there was "no doubt", adding: "The Defendant admits that the secret was communicated to him by Thomas Moat . . The question then is whether there was an equity against him; and I am of opinion that there was. It was clearly a breach of faith and of contract on the part of Thomas Moat to communicate the secret. The Defendant derives under that breach of faith and of contract, and I think he can gain no title by it . . the cases of Tipping v Clarke and Prince Albert v Strange shew that the equity prevails against parties deriving under the breach of contract or duty.
It might indeed be different if the Defendant was a purchaser for value of the secret without notice of any obligation affecting it; and the Defendant's case was attempted to be put upon this ground . . but I do not think that this view of the case can avail him . . So far as the secret is concerned he is a mere volunteer deriving under a breach of trust or of contract."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Morison v Moat (1852) 21 LJ Ch (NS) 248
1852


Employment, Information
Affirmed
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sharman v Sanders [1853] 138 ER 116; [1853] EngR 156; (1853) 13 CB 166; (1853) 138 ER 1161
25 Jan 1853


Employment
A contract which employed one person, but anticipated that the services required might be carried out by his employees did not fall within the Truck Acts.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Hochster v De La Tour; QBD 25-Jun-1853 - [1853] EWHC QB J29; [1853] 2 E and B 678; [1853] EngR 760; (1853) 2 El & Bl 678; (1853) 118 ER 922; [1853] EWHC QB J72

 
 Benwell v Inns; 18-Jul-1857 - [1857] EngR 778; (1857) 24 Beav 307; (1857) 53 ER 376
 
Harmer v Cornelius (1858) 5 CB (NS) 236
1858
CexC
Willes J
Employment, Contract
An artist was to be employed as a "panorama and scene-painter" for a period of at least a month. Held. The employer was entitled to terminate the contract after two days when the artist proved to be incompetent. Willes J said: "When a skilled labourer, artizan, or artist is employed, there is on his part an implied warranty that he is of skill reasonably competent to the task he undertakes, – Spondes peritiam artis. Thus, if an apothecary, a watch-maker or an attorney be employed for reward, they each impliedly undertake to possess and exercise reasonable skill in their several arts. The public profession of an art is a representation and undertaking to all the world that the professor possesses the requisite ability and skill."
1 Citers


 
Cuckson v Stones [1859] EngR 924; (1859) 1 El & El 247; (1859) 120 ER 902
1 Nov 1859


Employment, Contract

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Churchward v Chambers [1860] EngR 35; (1860) 2 F & F 229; (1860) 175 ER 1036
1860


Employment
The messman of a regiment having once distinctly refused to serve up dinner until threatened with arrest : Held, rightly dismissed, although it was in a moment of irritation, and next day followed by an apology. The mess committee having been changed, and the dismissal being by the new committee, semble, that the action was not maintainable.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Parish of St Pancras, Middlesex v The Parish of Clapham, Surrey (1860) 2 El & El 742
1860

Cockburn CJ, Crompton J, Blackburn J
Employment, Legal Professions
An attorney's clerk, articled by indenture, was held to be an apprentice and to gain a settlement as such for poor law purposes. In legal acceptation an apprentice is a person who is bound to and who serves another, for the purpose of learning something which the other is to teach him. Crompton J said: "The meaning, in law, of the word "apprentice" is well known. He is a person bound to serve a master who is bound to teach him. Such was the meaning of the term, when the statute [of 1814] passed, no less than it is at present."
1 Citers


 
Millership v John Brookes The Elder [1860] EngR 774; (1860) 5 H & N 797; (1860) 157 ER 1399
24 May 1860


Employment
An indenture sealed and delivered to an attorney who is acting for all the parties to it, with directions that it is not to take effect till something else is done, operates merely as an escrow. Quaere, whether, in order to enable a master to sue on the covenants in an indenture of apprenticeship, it is necessary that he should have executed the deed or a counterpart of it.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Price v Mouatt [1861] EngR 72; (1861) 2 F and F 529; (1861) 175 ER 1173
1861

Erle CJ
Employment
On a contract in writing, within the statute, in general terms for the employrnent of the plaintiff. Held, that it might be shown by parol, that he was employed in a particular capacity ; and, as a question whether he had wilfully disobeyed a lawful order, held, that it was for the jury whether the order was within the scope of that employment and whether, even if so, the disobedience was "wilful."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Price v Mouat [1862] EngR 136; (1862) 11 CB NS 508; (1862) 142 ER 895
1862

Erle CJ, Williams, Byles and Keating JJ
Employment, Contract
The plaintiff, who was known to be acting in the capacity of a "lace-buyer" was engaged by the defendant, a lace-dealer, under the following memorandum: "M agrees to engage P. for the term of three years from Monday the 15th of August, 1859, at the yearly salary of 500l payable monthly. P. to give the whole of his services, and to be advised and guided by M if necessary" In an action by P. against M. for a wrongful dismissal pending the term on the alleged ground of disobedience of lawful orders Held: that evidence was admissible to show the capacity in which the plaintiff was engaged, viz. as "lace-buyer" ; and that it was properly left to the jury to say whether or not the orders which he was alleged to have disobeyed were such as a person in that position was bound to obey.
The general rule is that a contract by which a person is employed in a specific character is to be construed as obliging him to render, not indeed all service that may be thought reasonable, but such service only as properly appertains to that character.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sharp v Hainsworthy [1862] EngR 1027; (1862) 3 B & S 139; (1862) 122 ER 53
12 Nov 1862


Employment
Master and servant, Wages. Deduction.-Upon a complaint under stat. 20 G. 2, c. 19, s. 1, by an artificer against his master for nonpayment of wages, the justices may make a deduction from the wages on the ground that the work was badly done.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Edmunds (PO) v Bushell And Jones [1865] EngR 12 (B); (1865) 4 F & F 1044
1865


Agency, Employment

[ Commonlii ]
 
Forbes v Eden (1865) 4 M 143
1865

Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis
Employment
A clergyman complained of a change in the doctrinal standards of the church. Held: Since the matter concerned an eccliastical issue and not that he had been deprived of his status as a minister, the court could not intervene. Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis said that the possession of a particular status, meaning by that term the capacity to perform certain functions or to hold certain offices, is a thing which the law recognises as a patrimonial interest, and that no one could be deprived of its possession by the unlawful act of another without having a legal remedy.
1 Citers


 
Forbes v Eden (1867) 5 M (HL) 36
1867
HL
Lord Chancellor Chelmsford
Employment
Decision affirmed
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Kirton v Dear; 1869 - (1869) 5 CP 217
 
Farrow vWilson (1869) LR 4 CP 744
5 Jul 1869
CCP
Willes and Montague Smith, J
Contract, Wills and Probate, Employment
The plaintiff had been employed by the deceased as a farm bailliff. The employment included both weekly wages and a residence. The employment was subject to six month's notice. After the death the personal representative, the defendant, terminated the employment contract. Held: Though as a general rule obligations under a contract continued to bind the estate upon death, this did not apply where personal considerations were dominant: "Where, however, personal considerations are of the foundation of the contract, as in cases of principal and agent and master and servant, the death of either party puts an end to the relation; and, in respect of service after the death, the contract is dissolved, unless there be a stipulation express or implied to the contrary. It is obvious that, in this case, if the servant had died, his master could not have compelled his representatives to perform the service in his stead, or pay damages, and equally by the death of the master the servant is discharged of his service, not in breach of the contract, but by implied condition."


 
 Osgood v Nelson; HL 1872 - (1872) LR 5 HL 636
 
Capron v Capron (1874) 29 LT 826
1874


Employment

Apportionment Act 1870
1 Citers



 
 Smith v Seghill Overseers; 1875 - (1875) LR 10 QB 422; 44 LJMC 114; 32 LT 859; 40 JP 228; 23 WR 745
 
Regina v The Postmaster General (1876) 1 QBD 858
1876

Blackburn J
Employment
Blackburn J said: "If a man gives his services, whatever consideration he gets for giving his services seems to me to be a remuneration for them. Consequently, I think if a person was in receipt of a payment or in the receipt of a percentage, or any kind of payment which would not be an actual money payment, the amount he would receive annually in respect of this would be "remuneration" . . "
1 Citers



 
 Yewens v Noakes; CA 1880 - (1880) 6 QBD 530
 
Phillips and Others v The Highland Railway Co [1883] UKPC 9; (1882-83) LR 8 App Cas 329
7 Mar 1883
PC

Employment
(Victoria)
[ Bailii ]
 
Yarmouth v France [1887] 19 QB D 647; 57 LJQB 7 (QBD)
11 Aug 1887
CA
Lord Esher MR, Lindley LJ, and Lopes LJ (dissenting)
Employment, Negligence
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him. Held. For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, the horse was plant in the employer's business and its character was a defect in that plant. "plant" includes whatever apparatus or instruments are used by a business man in carrying on his business. The employer was liable in negligence, and "The maxim Volenti non fit injuria was not wanted as between master and servant. It was only wanted, if at all, where no such relation as that of master and servant existed." Where the plaintiff knew of a defect: "mere knowledge of the danger will not do: there must be an assent on the part of the workman to accept the risk, with a full appreciation of its extent, to bring the workman within the maxim Volenti non fit injuria. If so, that is a question of fact."
Lord Esher MR said: "I detest the attempt to fetter the law by maxims. They are almost invariably misleading; they are for the most part so large and general in their language that they always include something which really is not intended to be included in them."
Employers' Liability Act 1880 10
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (1888) 39 ChD 339
1888
CA
Bowen LJ, Cotton LJ, Fry LJ
Agency, Employment
An employer having dismissed an employee (its managing director) later learnt of the employee's fraud. Held: The employer was allowed to rely upon that fraud to justify the dismissal. Where an agent is in wrongful repudiation of his contract with his principal, he loses his right to claim remuneration from his principal. It is sufficient if there was a fundamental breach of contract justifying a dismissal whether or not the employer knew of it at the time of dismissal. The managing director could not recover his salary for the part of the year which he had completed before his dismissal. His right to his salary was conditional on his fulfilling his duties for the year and that condition had not been fulfilled. The contract was indivisible, and no payment under it could be claimed.
Cotton LJ said: "Then when he was engaged in that contract, in respect of the matters of that very contract, he in one instance got a percentage of 1 per cent. from the Shipbuilding Company, and, in the other case, he insisted on getting - that is the evidence - and did get, a lump sum of £50. It is suggested that we should be laying down new rules of morality and equity if we were to so hold. In my opinion if people have got an idea that such transactions can be properly entered into by an agent, the sooner they are disabused of that idea the better. If a servant, or a managing director, or any person who is authorized to act, and is acting, for another in the matter of any contract, receives, as regards the contract, any sum, whether by way of percentage or otherwise, from the person with whom he is dealing on behalf of his principal, he is committing a breach of duty. It is not an honest act, and, in my opinion, it is a sufficient act to shew that he cannot be trusted to perform the duties which he has undertaken as servant or agent. He puts himself in such a position that he has a temptation not faithfully to perform his duty to his employer. He has a temptation, especially where he is getting a percentage on expenditure, not to cut down the expenditure, but to let it be increased, so that his percentage may be larger. I do not, however, rely on that, but what I say is this, that where an agent entering into a contract on behalf of his principal, and without the knowledge or assent of that principal, receives money from the person with whom he is dealing, he is doing a wrongful act, he is misconducting himself as regards his agency, and, in my opinion, that gives to his employer, whether a company or an individual, and whether the agent be a servant, or a managing director, power and authority to dismiss him from his employment as a person who by that act is shewn to be incompetent of faithfully discharging his duty to his principal."
Bowen LJ said: "This is an age, I may say, when a large portion of the commercial world makes its livelihood by earning, and by earning honestly, agency commission on sales or other transactions, but it is also a time when a large portion of those who move within the ambit of the commercial world, earn, I am afraid, commission dishonestly by taking commissions not merely from their masters, but from the other parties with whom their master is negotiating, and with whom they are dealing on behalf of their master, and taking such commissions without the knowledge of their master or principal. There never, therefore, was a time in the history of our law when it was more essential that Courts of Justice should draw with precision and firmness the line of demarcation which prevails between commissions which may be honestly received and kept, and commissions taken behind the master's back, and in fraud of the master. . . Now, there can be no question that an agent employed by a principal or master to do business with another, who, unknown to that principal or master, takes from that other person a profit arising out of the business which he is employed to transact, is doing a wrongful act inconsistent with his duty towards his master, and the continuance of confidence between them. He does the wrongful act whether such profit be given to him in return for services which he actually performs for the third party, or whether it be given to him for his supposed influence, or whether it be given to him on any other ground at all; if it is a profit which arises out of the transaction, it belongs to his master, and the agent or servant has no right to take it, or keep it, or bargain for it, or to receive it without bargain, unless his master knows it.
Fry LJ said: "In my judgment, the conduct of Ansell in so dealing was a fraud—a fraud on his principals—a fraud, not according to any artificial or technical rules, but according to the simple dictates of conscience, and according to the broad principles of morality and law, and I think it is the duty of the Courts to uphold those broad principles in all cases of this description.
We were invited to consider the state of mind of Mr. Ansell; whether he thought it wrong; in other words we are invited to take as the standard for our decision the alleged conscience of a fraudulent servant. I decline to accept any such rule as one on which the Court is to decide such questions."
1 Citers


 
Hastie v McMurtrie (1889) 16 R 715
1889

Inglis, Lord President
Scotland, Employment, Ecclesiastical
The pursuer had been appointed a foreign missionary of the Church of Scotland in India. Held: He had not been appointed to an office in the church but had an ordinary contract of service which was terminable by notice in the usual way. "Holders of benefices in the church are public officers, and these offices are munera publica."
1 Citers


 
Lister and Co v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch D 1
1890
CA
Cotton LJ, Lindley LJ
Equity, Litigation Practice, Employment
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their foreman had received secret commissions which he had invested in land and other investments. They sought interlocutory relief to prevent him dealing with the land and requiring him to bring the other investments into court. Held: The injunction was refused because the money was not that of the plaintiffs so as to make the defendant a trustee, but was money to which the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim in the action, i.e. "a debt due from the Defendant to the Plaintiffs in consequence of the corrupt bargain which he entered into" but (a) the money which he had received under that bargain could not be treated as being money of the Plaintiffs "before any judgment or decree in the action had been made" The court will not grant an injunction to restrain a defendant from parting with his assets so that they may be preserved in case the plaintiff’s claim succeeds. A claim relating to the acceptance of bribes was not within a proprietary claim.
Lindley LJ discussed the relation between the employer and employee who was accused of betraying his trust in taking a bribe, saying the relationship: "is that of debtor and creditor; it is not that of trustee and cestui que trust. We are asked to hold that it is - which would involve consequences which, I confess, startle me. One consequence, of course, would be that, if Stubbs were to become bankrupt, this property acquired by him with the money paid to him by Messrs Varley would be withdrawn from the mass of his creditors and be handed over bodily to Lister & Co. Can that be right?
Another consequence would be that, if the Appellants are right, Lister & Co could compel Stubbs to account to them, not only for the money with interest, but for all the profits which he might have made by embarking in trade with it. Can that be right? "
1 Citers


 
Maw v Jones (1890) 25 QBD 107
1890


Damages, Employment
An assessment of damages on a dismissal might take into account the greater difficulty which an apprentice dismissed with a slur on his character might have in obtaining other employment.
1 Citers



 
 Lamb v Evans; CA 1893 - [1893] 1 Ch 218

 
 Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co v Nordenfelt; CA 1893 - [1893] 1 Ch 630

 
 Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company; HL 1894 - [1894] AC 535; [1893] 1 Ch 630

 
 Robb v Green; 1895 - [1895] 2 QB 1
 
Brace v Calder [1895] 2 QB 253; 36 Digest 392; [1895] 72 LT 829
1895

Rigby LJ
Employment
The dissolution of the employing partnership brings a contract of employment to an end.
Rigby LJ said: "a contract to serve four employers cannot, without express language, be construed as being a contract to serve two of them . . the dissolution of the partnership operated as the dismissal of the plaintiff not authorised by law."
1 Citers



 
 Robb v Green; CA 2-Jan-1895 - [1895] 2 QB 315
 
Hardaker v Idle District Council (1896) 65 LJQB 363; (1896) 74 LT 69; [1896] 1 QB 335
1896
CA
Lindley, A L Smith LJJ
Employment
A reservation of a right to direct or superintend the performance of the task cannot transform into a contract of service what in essence is an independent contract.
A statutory duty to maintain the highway could not be delegated to independent traders.
Lindley LJ identified an innominate class of cases in which an employer will be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor engaged to perform what is conceived to be a duty owed by the employer to another: "It is not always easy to avoid mistakes in applying this, or indeed any other, principle to difficult cases, as is shewn by Gray v Pullen [25] and Butler v Hunter.[26] The latter case is inconsistent with Bower v Peate and Quarman v Burnett, the well-known job-master's case. I will take the law, however, as it was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Dalton v Angus. Lord Blackburn there said: 'Ever since Quarman v Burnett it has been considered settled law that one employing another is not liable for his collateral negligence, unless the relation of master and servant existed between them. So that a person employing a contractor to do work is not liable for the negligence of that contractor or his servants. On the other hand, a person causing something to be done, the doing of which casts on him a duty, cannot escape from the responsibility attaching on him of seeing that duty performed by delegating it to a contractor. He may bargain with the contractor that he shall perform the duty, and stipulate for an indemnity from him if it is not performed, but he cannot thereby relieve himself from liability to those injured by the failure to perform it...' Lord Blackburn in this passage contrasts a contractor's negligence, which he calls 'collateral' with failure on the part of a contractor to perform the duty of his employer. For the first the employer is not liable; for the second he is, whether the failure is attributable to negligence or not. Lord Blackburn's language in Hughes v Percival shews that this is really what he meant, for he points out that the employer's duty was to see that his contractor did his work properly. Lord Watson said the same thing."
1 Citers



 
 Haynes v Doman; CA 1899 - [1899] 2 Ch 13
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.