William Hill Organisation Ltd v Tucker: CA 8 Apr 1998

In the absence of a sufficient clause providing otherwise, an employee required not to attend work during his notice period may work for another employer during that period. The court should ask whether the bargain between the employer and the employee is such that there is a right to work, in other words, whether the obligation of the employer is not confined to payment of the agreed remuneration, but also includes the obligation to provide work.


Moritt LJ


Times 08-Apr-1998, Gazette 20-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 615, [1998] IRLR 313, [1999] ICR 291




England and Wales


CitedCollier v Sunday Referee Publishing Co 1940
The plaintiff was a chief sub-editor with the defendant. He sought the right to work and be paid for working.
Held: The employee had the right to work. Asquith J discussed a former employee’s right to earn a living: ‘It is true that a contract . .

Cited by:

CitedCerinus v Bell College of Technology EAT 28-Sep-2001
The employee appealed against the dismissal of her claim for unfair dismissal. Following a re-organisation, she found that there was less and less work of the sort she was employed to undertake. She requested voluntary redundancy and was refused . .
CitedSG and R Valuation Service Co v Boudrais and others QBD 12-May-2008
The claimant sought to require the defendants not to work during their notice period to achieve the equivalent of garden leave despite there being no provision for garden leave in the contracts. It was said that the defendants had conspired together . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90513