Mears v Safecar Security Ltd: EAT 1981

Slynn P summarised the case law on implying terms into employment contracts: ‘In our judgment the proper approach is to look at all the facts and the circumstances to see whether a term is to be implied that wages shall or shall not be paid during periods of absence through sickness. Such a term as the cases show may be implied from the custom or practice in the industry. It may be implied from the knowledge of the parties at the time the contract is made. The implication may depend upon whether the contract is one whether payment is due if the servant is ready, willing and able to work. It may depend not so much as to whether the employee is willing and ready or willing and able to work but on whether payment for the wages of the consideration for faithful service at other times during the contract and during the period of absence rather than for a particular week’s work actually performed. These are all matters which will have to be taken into account; so will the nature of the contract itself.’


Slynn P


[1981] IRLR 99


CitedMarrison v Bell CA 1939
Scott LJ referred to the authorities on implying terms as to payment of sick pay into employment contracts: ‘Those cases say in my opinion quite clearly that under a contract of service irrespective of the question of length of notice provided by . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromMears v Safecar Security Ltd CA 2-Jan-1981
There is generally a presumption that sick pay will be paid. A term would be implied if the contract was silent on the point. In implying terms into a contract of employment (the terms in that case relating to sick pay) courts and tribunals were not . .
CitedLindsey Beveridge v KLM UK Ltd EAT 16-Feb-2000
EAT The claimant appealed refusal of her claim for unlawful deduction. She had been off sick long term. Her doctor certified her fit to return, and she asked to return, but her employer waited a further six weeks . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.374255