O’Brien v Associated Fire Alarms [1968] 1 WLR 1916
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-07 07:25:00 UTC
Plaintiff worked at Defendant’s Liverpool branch. There was a shortage of work there and Plaintiff refused Defendant’s request to move to another branch.
He was sacked, and Plaintiff claimed this was redundancy (which Defendant contested so as to avoid paying redundancy pay).
CA held that, since there was no ‘mobility’ clause in Plaintiff’s contract, whether express or implied, he could not have been sacked for breaching his contract. Rather, the dismissal must have been on grounds of redundancy.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
North Riding Garages v Butterwick
Plaintiff was sacked because he couldn’t cope with new practices required by the new owners of a business, including increased paperwork and giving estimates to customers in advance. Plaintiff then e...
Murray v Foyle Meats
Plaintiffs had contracts with Defendant to work in a slaughterhouse but the contracts contained a flexibility clause, saying Plaintiffs could be required to work in other parts of the plant. The mark...
Ticehurst v BT
Plaintiff, a manager and union member, took part in a go-slow and then strike as part of industrial action. The employer said that any employee who was not prepared to keep to their contract in full...
Simmons v Hoover
Plaintiff went on a strike and Defendant (employer) took that to be a repudiatory breach of contract. The EAT accepted that to go on strike was to deliberately breach one’s contract, so that the empl...
Western Excavating v Sharp
Plaintiff was suspended for taking absence without permission. This put him in financial hardship and his request to get his holiday pay early or to get a loan were refused. He therefore left the com...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.