The plaintiff sought to sue for wrongful dismissal on a contract of employment under which he was paid andpound;13 salary per week and andpound;6 ‘expenses’, when his expenses could never exceed andpound;1 per week.
Held: The parties had made this bargain knowing well that the expenses figure was a sham figure and that by making the agreement in that form they were intending to defeat the proper claims of the Revenue. The contract was therefore against public policy and unenforceable.
Citations:
[1951] 2 All ER 264
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 21st Century Logistic Solutions Limited (In Liquidation) v Madysen Limited QBD 17-Feb-2004
The vendor sold computers to the defendant, intending not to account to the commissioners for the VAT. The seller went into liquidation, and the liquidator sought payment. The purchaser had been unaware of the intended fraud and resisted payment. . .
Cited – Skilton v Sullivan CA 18-Mar-1994
The seller of a quantity of Koi carp sent the buyer an invoice for trout. The supply of Koi carp is chargeable to VAT but the supply of trout is not. When the seller sued for the price, he was met with a plea that the contract was illegal as being a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.194057