- Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd
-
Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd 
Court Court of Appeal Citation(s) [1986] ICR 414 Case opinions Dillon LJ Keywords Frustration Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd [1986] ICR 414 is an English contract law and UK labour law case, concerning the frustration of an agreement.
Contents
Facts
Mr Notcutt had a heart attack. The doctor said it was unlikely he would ever work again. His employers gave the statutory 12 week notice to terminate his contract, but made no payment of wages on the ground that the employee was not entitled to sick pay. Mr Notcutt sued under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 88(1)(b) or s 89(3) which say that normal wages must be paid in the period of notice if an employee is incapable of work due to sickness. Then the employer argued the contract was frustrated.
Judgment
Dillon LJ held the contract was frustrated. He referred to Hare v Murphy Brothers Ltd[1] where Lord Denning MR held a contract was frustrated when a man was sentenced to 12 months prison, on a supposed analogy with someone that was grievously injured an incapacitated in a road accident.
“ when more than six months later the doctor made his report, both parties appreciated, on the judge’s findings, that he was not going to work again. He was totally incapacitated from performing the contract. That was a situation which, in my judgment, was outside the scope of the contract properly construed. To put it another way, the coronary which left him unable to work again was an unexpected occurrence which made his performance of his contractual obligation – to work – impossible and brought about such a change in the significance of the mutual obligations that the contract, if performed, would be a different thing from that contracted for... Accordingly though I feel much sympathy with the employee in that his working life has been cut short by illness or incapacity, I would dismiss the appeal. ” See also
Unfair dismissal cases ILO Convention 158Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 92-123R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment [2000] UKHL 12Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham [1992] ICR 183Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1977] EWCA Civ 2Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1982] ICR 693Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd [1986] EWCA Civ 3Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] ICR 273British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] EWCA Civ 3030Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8Port of London Authority v Payne [1993] EWCA Civ 26Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1972] EW Misc 1Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull CC [2004] UKHL 36Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [1980] ICR 110- English contract law
- Frustration in English law
- Igbo v Johnson, Matthey Chemicals Ltd [1986] ICR 505
Notes
- ^ [1974] ICR 603
References
External links
Categories:- United Kingdom labour law cases
- English contract case law
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
