{"id":218,"date":"2018-10-25T17:52:41","date_gmt":"2018-10-25T09:52:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/?p=218"},"modified":"2018-10-25T17:52:41","modified_gmt":"2018-10-25T09:52:41","slug":"unlawful-dismissal-laws-v-london-chronicle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/?p=218","title":{"rendered":"[Unlawful Dismissal] Laws v London Chronicle"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"info case\">\n<h1>LAWS v. LONDON CHRONICLE (INDICATOR NEWSPAPERS) LTD.<\/h1>\n<aside class=\"info court\">\n<p class=\"courtname\">[COURT OF APPEAL.]<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<p class=\"cite parallel\">[Plaint No. O. 1362.]<\/p>\n<aside class=\"info court\"><span class=\"casedates\">1959 April 22.<\/span><span class=\"judges\">Lord Evershed M.R., Lord Jenkins and Willmer L.J.<\/span><\/aside>\n<aside><\/aside>\n<aside class=\"info court\"><em>Master and Servant \u2014 Wrongful dismissal \u2014 Disobedience of servant \u2014 Whether wilful disregard of essential condition of service.<\/em><\/aside>\n<aside><\/aside>\n<aside class=\"info court\"><em>Contract \u2014 Repudiation.<\/em><\/aside>\n<aside><\/aside>\n<\/aside>\n<section class=\"casefactsummary\">\n<section class=\"pgrp\">A few weeks after the plaintiff had joined the employ of the defendant company she was dismissed summarily for disobeying an order given by the chairman and managing director. During a business meeting which the plaintiff had been required to attend, the plaintiff&#8217;s immediate superior, D., had an altercation with the chairman and managing director and D. left the meeting, inviting the plaintiff and another employee to accompany him. The chairman and managing director told the two employees to stay where they were but they both left the room. Having been summarily dismissed, the plaintiff brought proceedings:\u2014<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"casedecisionsummary\">\n<article>\n<div class=\"held\">\n<p><em>Held\u00a0<\/em>, that this single act of disobedience did not justify the summary dismissal of the plaintiff; it was not an act showing a wilful disregard of the essentials of the contract of service which amounted to a repudiation of the contract by the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<article>\n<div class=\"held\">\n<p>Dictum of Lord James of Hereford in\u00a0<em>Clouston &amp; Co.\u00a0<\/em><em>Ltd. v.\u00a0<\/em><em>Corry<\/em>\u00a0<a class=\"null\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/search\/enhRunRemoteLink.do?A=0.02600221241111811&amp;service=citation&amp;langcountry=GB&amp;backKey=20_T28067351026&amp;linkInfo=F%23GB%23AC%23sel1%251906%25page%25122%25year%251906%25&amp;ersKey=23_T28067351018\" target=\"_parent\">[1906] A.C. 122<\/a>, 129 applied.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<article>\n<div class=\"held\">\n<p><em>Turner v. Mason<\/em>\u00a0(1845) 14 M. &amp; W. 112 distinguished.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><mark class=\"page\">[1959] 1 WLR 698 at 699<\/mark><\/section>\n<div class=\"leftindent49\">\n<section class=\"pgrp\">APPEAL from Judge Dale, sitting at the Westminster County Court.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">By a letter dated May 28, 1958, the defendant company offered the plaintiff employment as an \u201cadvertisement representative\u201d at a weekly salary of \u00a310 with 5 per cent. commission. The employment was expressed to be terminable on either party giving one month&#8217;s notice. The letter was signed by one Delderfield, the manager of the advertising staff. On Friday, June 20, the plaintiff and the other members \u2014 of the advertisement staff were required to attend a meeting in the room of the chairman and managing director, a Mr. Brittain. The meeting was convened to hear observations of a Mr. Blakey, on matters of business efficiency. During the meeting Mr. Brittain had an altercation with Delderfield. It was suggested that Delderfield was drunk and that he needed black coffee to calm him. He said that he would stand no more and would go \u201ctaking the staff\u201d with him. He did leave, inviting his two juniors to accompany him. Brittain said to them \u201cStay where you are,\u201d but they both left the room.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">On the following Monday, June 23, when the plaintiff attended the defendants&#8217; premises she was handed a letter, addressed to her by the secretary, which stated:<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cIt is impossible for the company to overlook your behaviour and actions in leaving the conference last Friday in defiance of the managing director&#8217;s request that you remain.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">As a result the plaintiff left the service of the defendant company.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">She brought proceedings for wrongful dismissal and claimed damages. The defendants denied that she had been dismissed, but said that, if there was dismissal, it was not wrongful. The county court judge awarded her \u00a345 damages and costs, and the defendants appealed on the issue of wrongful dismissal only.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<p><br class=\"br\" \/><br class=\"br\" \/><\/p>\n<section class=\"casejudgments\">\n<section class=\"caseconst\">\n<aside class=\"glpnote\"><em>Owen Stable\u00a0<\/em>for the defendant company.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"caseconst\">\n<aside class=\"glpnote\"><em>Stephen Stewart\u00a0<\/em>for the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"caseconst\">\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">In addition to the cases referred to in the judgment of Lord Evershed M.R., the following were cited in argument:\u00a0<em>Bouzorou v. Ottoman Bank<\/em><sup>1<\/sup>;\u00a0<em>Spain v. Arnott.<\/em><sup>2<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<section class=\"pgrp\">LORD EVERSHED M.R. stated the facts and continued: It is the corner-stone of Mr. Stable&#8217;s case that there was in truth nothing that a self-respecting employer could do but to dismiss summarily: for here was an order given \u2014 \u201cStay where you are\u201d \u2014 and disobeyed. Mr. Stable has cited authority \u2014 of antiquity, but none the less of respectability \u2014 to show that disobedience (as he contends) of any order that is lawful entitles the employer to dismiss the servant summarily. In\u00a0<em>Turner v. Mason<\/em><sup>3<\/sup>\u00a0a domestic servant \u2014 quite deliberately, because she had made a request<mark class=\"page\">[1959] 1 WLR 698 at 700<\/mark>which was rejected \u2014 absented herself during a certain night when she should have been on duty; and her plea of justification was that her mother was desperately ill \u2014 though it is not clear that she so informed her employer. She was dismissed; and the court of Queen&#8217;s Bench affirmed the view that the dismissal was justified. I will not read the judgments of Parke C.B. and Barons Alderson and Rolfe; but it would in my judgment be going too far to say that any of those judges laid it down as a proposition of law that every act of disobedience of a lawful order must entitle the employer to dismiss. I think that cannot be extracted from the judgments; and I am satisfied that it is too narrow a proposition as one of law.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">The law to be applied is stated (for example) in the paragraphs of Halsbury&#8217;s Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 25, at pp. 485 and 486, to which Mr. Stable referred us in reply; and I will cite a sentence or two as a foundation to what follows. \u201cWilful disobedience to the lawful and reasonable order of the master justifies summary dismissal.\u201d Then, a little later,<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cMisconduct, inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge by the servant of the duties for which he was engaged, is good cause for his dismissal, but there is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">Later, again,<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cThere is good ground for the dismissal of a servant if he is habitually neglectful in respect of the duties for which he was engaged.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">And in one of the footnotes on that page there is a further statement, in reference to\u00a0<em>Edwards v. Levy<\/em>,<sup>4<\/sup>\u00a0observing that in that case<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cit was pointed out that a single instance of insolence in the case of a servant in such a position as that of a newspaper critic would hardly justify dismissal.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">To my mind, the proper conclusion to be drawn from the passages I have cited and the cases to which we have been referred is that, since a contract of service is but an example of contracts in general, so that the general law of contract will be applicable, it follows that the question must be \u2014 if summary dismissal is claimed to be justifiable \u2014 whether the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service. It is, no doubt, therefore, generally true that wilful disobedience of an order will justify summary dismissal, since wilful disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order shows a disregard \u2014 a complete disregard \u2014 of a condition essential to the contract of service, namely, the condition that the servant must obey the proper orders of the master, and that unless he does so the relationship is, so to speak, struck at fundamentally.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">In the passages which I have read, it will be remembered, there is a statement \u201c\u2026 there is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal.\u201d That statement is derived from the judgment of the Privy Council delivered by Lord James of Hereford in the case to which Mr.<mark class=\"page\">[1959] 1 WLR 698 at 701<\/mark>Stewart referred of\u00a0<em>Clouston &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Corry.<\/em><sup>5<\/sup>\u00a0I will read a rather larger passage which provides the context. Lord James said:<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cNow the sufficiency of the justification depended upon the extent of misconduct. There is no fixed rule of law defining the degree of misconduct which will justify dismissal. Of course there may be misconduct in a servant which will not justify the determination of the contract of service by one of the parties to it against the will of the other. On the other hand, misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service will justify dismissal.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">In the present case, the judge, in the course of his judgment, said:<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cIt is clear and sound law that to justify dismissal for one act of disobedience or misconduct it has to be of a grave and serious nature\u201d;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<p>and later he concluded, in the plaintiff&#8217;s favour, that what she had done, or not done, on June 20 was not sufficiently grave to justify dismissal.<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">With all respect to the judge, I think that his proposition is not justified in the form in which he stated it. I think it is not right to say that one act of disobedience, to justify dismissal, must be of a grave and serious character. I do, however, think (following the passages which I have already cited) that one act of disobedience or misconduct can justify dismissal only if it is of a nature which goes to show (in effect) that the servant is repudiating the contract, or one of its essential conditions; and for that reason, therefore, I think that you find in the passages I have read that the disobedience must at least have the quality that it is \u201cwilful\u201d: it does (in other words) connote a deliberate flouting of the essential contractual conditions.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">If I have stated correctly the basis of the law to be applied, let me return to the facts of this case. I do not narrate again the circumstances in the chairman&#8217;s room on the afternoon of June 20, 1958. But the plaintiff said:<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cI left because I owed loyalty to Mr. Delderfield who was my direct superior and I was very embarrassed and felt it impossible to stay. I did not know what to do I was so upset.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">I have no doubt that the judge (who saw the witnesses) believed her: for, in the final paragraph of his judgment, he said:<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<blockquote><p>\u201cShe had served loyally up to then. There was this row between her immediate superior, Delderfield, and Brittain. The only thing Brittain said to her was \u2018You stay where you are.\u2019 She did not do so but walked out of the room. Till then she had been a good girl. This was the one and only act of disobedience. She was put in a difficult position.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">As I have said, I take it (and no ground for a contrary view has been put to us) that the judge did accept her as a witness of truth. The situation was plainly one which was as embarrassing as it was unpleasant for her; and in the circumstances, with her immediate superior walking out and asking her to follow, I am satisfied that it cannot be said that her conduct<mark class=\"page\">[1959] 1 WLR 698 at 702<\/mark>did amount to such a lawful disobedience of an order, such a deliberate disregard of the conditions of service, as justified the employer. in saying \u201cI accept your repudiation: I treat the contract as ended: I summarily dismiss you.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">I am a little comforted, I must say, by the circumstance that, when Mr. Campbell wrote his letter on Monday, June 23, he did, after all, refer to Mr. Brittain&#8217;s remark \u201cYou stay where you are,\u201d not as an order, but as a \u201crequest.\u201d It was in truth not really an order related to her duties as advertisement representative: it was a wise direction for him to have given in order to try to create out of disorder something more seemly in his room on the afternoon in question.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">For those reasons, though I have, as I say, felt that the judge in his brief statement may not quite correctly have stated the law to be applied, and to that extent I accept the argument put to us by Mr. Stable, none the less in the end I come \u2014 and I come, I must say, unhesitatingly \u2014 to the same conclusion as the judge; and would dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">LORD JENKINS. I agree; and cannot usefully add anything.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"pgrp\">WILLMER L.J. I also agree.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"casejudgments\">\n<section class=\"casejudgment\">\n<section class=\"casejudgmentbody\">\n<aside class=\"disposition\">Appeal dismissed.<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"casejudgments\">\n<section class=\"caseconst\">\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">Solicitors:\u00a0<em>Oswald Hickson Collier &amp; Co.; Tyrrell Lewis &amp; Co.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/aside>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n<p class=\"author\">E. D.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"glpnote\">\n<ul class=\"footnotes\">\n<li><a id=\"ref0\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/#link0\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/images\/s.gif\" alt=\"Footnote \" width=\"0\" height=\"0\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a>1 *\u00a0<a class=\"null\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/search\/enhRunRemoteLink.do?A=0.49487085170675427&amp;service=citation&amp;langcountry=GB&amp;backKey=20_T28067351026&amp;linkInfo=F%23GB%23AC%23sel1%251930%25page%25271%25year%251930%25&amp;ersKey=23_T28067351018\" target=\"_parent\">[1930] A.C. 271<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul class=\"footnotes\">\n<li><a id=\"ref0\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/#link0\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/images\/s.gif\" alt=\"Footnote \" width=\"0\" height=\"0\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a>2 \u2021\u2021; (1817) 2 Stark. 256.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul class=\"footnotes\">\n<li><a id=\"ref0\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/#link0\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/images\/s.gif\" alt=\"Footnote \" width=\"0\" height=\"0\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a>3 (1845) 14 M. &amp; W. 112.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul class=\"footnotes\">\n<li><a id=\"ref0\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/#link0\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/images\/s.gif\" alt=\"Footnote \" width=\"0\" height=\"0\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a>4 (1860) 2 F. &amp; F. 94.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul class=\"footnotes\">\n<li><a id=\"ref0\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/#link0\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/images\/s.gif\" alt=\"Footnote \" width=\"0\" height=\"0\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a>5\u00a0<a class=\"null\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lexisnexis.com.eproxy.lib.hku.hk\/in\/legal\/search\/enhRunRemoteLink.do?A=0.6768485779258954&amp;service=citation&amp;langcountry=GB&amp;backKey=20_T28067351026&amp;linkInfo=F%23GB%23AC%23sel1%251906%25page%25122%25year%251906%25&amp;ersKey=23_T28067351018\" target=\"_parent\">[1906] A.C. 122<\/a>, 129.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/aside>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>LAWS v. LONDON CHRONICLE (INDICATOR NEWSPAPERS) LTD. [COURT OF APPEAL.] [Plaint No. O. 1362.] 1959 April 22.Lord Evershed M.R., Lord Jenkins and Willmer L.J. Master and Servant \u2014 Wrongful dismissal \u2014 Disobedience of servant \u2014 Whether wilful disregard of essential condition of service. Contract \u2014 Repudiation. A few weeks after the plaintiff had joined the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=218"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":219,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218\/revisions\/219"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/geld.hkto.net\/document1\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}