Regina v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page: CA 1991

(Orse Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex parte Page) The employee’s terms included two provisions, one in his letter of appointment which provided for either party to terminate on three months’ notice in writing, and one in the university’s statutes empowering the university to dismiss him for good cause.
Held: He could be dismissed on either basis. Good cause was not required if three month’s notice was given. The right to terminate on notice was not to be cut down by the ‘good cause’ term. The court made clear, that this was a question of construction of the particular contractual documents and terms involved and no general principle of law was established that notice clauses in such contracts are to prevail over other express terms concerned with termination.
[1992] ICR 67, [1991] 4 All ER 747, [1991] 1 WLR 1277
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL 3-Dec-1992
The decisions of University Visitors are subject to judicial review in that they exercise a public function. English law no longer draws a distinction between jurisdictional errors of law and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
However, the . .
CitedKaur v MG Rover Group Ltd CA 17-Nov-2004
The applicant was employed by the respondent who had a collective agreement with a trade union.
Held: Not all elements of the collective agreement need be intended to be legally enforceable. She complained that the collective agreement would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.220325