Micklefield v SAC Technology Ltd: 1990

A Share Option Scheme provided that the option could not be exercised if the option holder ceased to be an executive ‘for any reason’. The employer dismissed Mr Micklefield wrongfully, so that he ceased to be an employee before he was able to exercise his option. As a matter of construction there was no implied term which prevented the employers terminating the contract of employment wrongfully so as to prevent the Share Option being exercisable.


John Mowbray QC


[1990] IRLR 218


England and Wales


ConsideredThompson v Asda MFI Group Plc 1988
The court considered the implication of a term which would prevent an employer selling a subsidiary so that employees of the subsidiary who had rights under the group share option scheme ceased to be employees for the purpose of that agreement. It . .
CitedAlghussein Establishment v Eton College HL 1985
A literal construction of the relevant provision of a lease would have led to an absurd result that a contractor who failed to complete a development without fault could not call for a lease, whereas a contractor who wilfully defaulted could do so. . .

Cited by:

CitedTesco Stores Limited v Pook, Pook, Universal Projects (UK) Limited ChD 14-Apr-2003
A trustee in breach of his duty has a duty to disclose that breach. It was alleged that the defendants, including a director of the claimant, had submitted false invoices to the claimants, and purchased property with the resulting profits.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194867