Vine v National Dock Labour Board: CA 1956

The plaintiff complained as to the way he had been dismissed. He was employed as a dock labourer under a statutory scheme. The Board said that the power of dismissal was given by the statute and that therefore the standard rules on dismissal did not apply.
Held: Jenkins LJ (Dissenting) said: ‘In the ordinary case of master and servant, however, the repudiation or the wrongful dismissal puts an end to the contract, and a claim for damages arises. It is necessarily a claim for damages and nothing more. The nature of the bargain is such that it can be nothing more.’
‘it follows from the fact that the plaintiff’s dismissal was invalid that his name was never validly removed from the register, and he continued in the employ of the National Board. This is an entirely different situation from the ordinary master and servant case. There, if the master wrongfully dismisses the servant, either summarily or by giving insufficient notice, the employment is effectively terminated albeit in breach of contract. Here, the removal of the plaintiff’s name from the register being, in law, a nullity, he continued to have the right to be treated as a registered dock worker with all the benefits which, by statute, that status conferred on him.’

Jenkins LJ
[1956] 1 All ER 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromVine v National Dock Labour Board HL 1957
The plaintiff was employed under a statutory scheme for the employment of dock labourers. He appealed against a finding that the rules on dismissal contained within the scheme were not the only ones appertaining.
Held: (reversing the majority . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.440287