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 decision of the Court of Appeal) The respondent wrongfully delegated its power to dismiss a worker to a disciplinary committee instead of deciding the issue itself. It was that process of delegation to a committee which did not itself have the power to dismiss which led to the declaration that the termination of the appellant’s employment was a nullity and that he was entitled to damages. That was an ultra vires act of the respondent itself. Referring to the ordinary master and servant case, Viscount Kilmuir LC said: ‘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. It is therefore right that, with the background of this scheme, the court should declare his rights.’ A declaration that a dismissal was null and void would not be granted in the case of an ordinary contract of employment.
Lord Keith of Avonholm said that the case did not involve ‘a straightforward relationship of master and servant’. It involved the validity of certain administrative procedures.
References: [1957] AC 488, [1956] 1 QB 658, [1956] 3 All ER 939, [1957] 2 WLR 106
Judges: Viscount Kilmuir LC, Lord Keith of Avonholm
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Approved – Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank of Foreign Trade HL 1921 ([1921] 2 AC 438)
The court considered how the court should exercise any jurisdiction to make declarations.
Held: The House (Lord Dunedin) referred, with approval, to the approach taken by the Scottish Courts, identifying three propositions, namely that the . . - Appeal from – Vine v National Dock Labour Board CA 1956 ([1956] 1 All ER 1)
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 . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – F v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990 ([1990] 2 AC 1, , [1991] UKHL 1)
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . . - Cited – Regina v East Berkshire Health Authority, ex Parte Walsh CA 14-May-1984 (, [1984] EWCA Civ 6, [1985] QB 152)
A district nursing officer had been dismissed for misconduct. He applied for judicial review. He sought judicial review to quash the decision on the ground that there had been a breach of natural justice and that the district nursing officer had no . . - Cited – Shoesmith, Regina (on The Application of) v OFSTED and Others CA 27-May-2011 (, [2011] EWCA Civ 642, [2011] PTSR 1459, [2011] BLGR 649, [2011] IRLR 679, [2011] ICR 1195)
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim. She had been head of Child Services at Haringey. After the notorious violent death of Baby P, the Secretary of State called for an inquiry under the Act. He then removed her as director. She . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.250063 br>