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.
References: [1992] ICR 67
Jurisdiction: >England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Appeal from – Regina v Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page; Regina v Lord President of the Privy Council ex Parte Page HL (Gazette 10-Mar-93, [1993] 3 WLR 1112, [1993] AC 682, Bailii, [1992] UKHL 12)
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.
The House . . - Cited – Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1507, Times 06-Dec-04, [2005] ICR 625, [2005] IRLR 40)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 12 July 2020; scu-Ref: scu.220325 br>