31:
128:
brought to an end. Moreover, because Ferodo Ltd had not in fact terminated the contract the damages that Mr Rigby received could be beyond the 12-week notice period in which the contract could legitimately have been terminated, and a notice of unilateral variation could not be implicitly construed as giving notice of termination.
127:
The House of Lords held that there had been a repudiatory breach of contract by the employer and so Mr Rigby was entitled to claim his shortfall in wages. If the employee continued to work, this did not necessarily imply he accepted the change, nor was it the case that the contract was automatically
114:
operator on £129 a week with a contract terminable on 12 weeks’ notice, made it known he did not accept the wage reduction. For him this was approximately £30 a week. He continued to work and after over a year, he claimed for shortfall.
118:
The judge held there was a unilateral variation of the contract, which amounted to a breach, and so Mr Rigby was entitled to damages. The Court of Appeal agreed. Ferodo Ltd appealed to the House of Lords.
367:
493:
157:
354:
488:
478:
319:
150:
331:
417:
401:
287:
143:
251:
195:
263:
239:
227:
275:
483:
389:
215:
343:
204:
378:
423:
92:
308:
174:
110:
Ltd cut wages by 5% to stay afloat. The trade union agreed not to strike. Mr Rigby, who worked as a
185:
74:
30:
41:
472:
412:
99:
without a worker's consent, the worker may continue to work and claim the shortfall.
88:
427:
297:
135:
64:
Lord Bridge, Lord Fraser, Lord
Brightman, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver.
107:
111:
96:
139:
68:
60:
55:
47:
37:
23:
151:
8:
494:United Kingdom employment contract case law
356:Alexander v Standard Telephones Ltd (No 2)
158:
144:
136:
29:
20:
438:
320:Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority
95:. It held that if an employer reduces
332:Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board
7:
288:Crossley v Faithful & Gould Ltd
418:Employment contract in English law
402:Employment contract in English law
14:
252:SS for Employment v ASLEF (No 2)
228:Sagar v Ridehalgh & Sons Ltd
196:Employment Information Directive
489:1988 in United Kingdom case law
264:System Floors (UK) Ltd v Daniel
240:Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets LBC
479:United Kingdom labour case law
276:Scally v Southern Health Board
1:
390:Malone v British Airways plc
216:Devonald v Rosser & Sons
510:
344:French v Barclays Bank plc
205:Employment Rights Act 1996
398:
386:
379:Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd
375:
365:
351:
340:
328:
316:
305:
295:
284:
272:
260:
248:
236:
224:
212:
202:
193:
182:
171:
166:Employment contract cases
73:
28:
463:A Casebook on Labour Law
447:A Casebook on Labour Law
424:Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
16:1988 UK labour law case
93:contract of employment
465:(Hart 2019) ch 5, 236
449:(Hart 2019) ch 5, 236
309:Keen v Commerzbank AG
484:House of Lords cases
175:Johnson v Unisys Ltd
91:case concerning the
186:Gisda Cyf v Barratt
75:Employment contract
84:Rigby v Ferodo Ltd
24:Rigby v Ferodo Ltd
408:
407:
80:
79:
501:
450:
443:
357:
160:
153:
146:
137:
56:Court membership
33:
21:
509:
508:
504:
503:
502:
500:
499:
498:
469:
468:
458:
453:
444:
440:
436:
409:
404:
394:
382:
371:
361:
355:
347:
336:
324:
312:
301:
291:
280:
268:
256:
244:
232:
220:
208:
198:
189:
178:
167:
164:
134:
125:
105:
17:
12:
11:
5:
507:
505:
497:
496:
491:
486:
481:
471:
470:
467:
466:
457:
454:
452:
451:
437:
435:
432:
431:
430:
420:
415:
406:
405:
399:
396:
395:
387:
384:
383:
376:
373:
372:
366:
363:
362:
352:
349:
348:
341:
338:
337:
329:
326:
325:
317:
314:
313:
306:
303:
302:
296:
293:
292:
285:
282:
281:
273:
270:
269:
261:
258:
257:
249:
246:
245:
237:
234:
233:
225:
222:
221:
213:
210:
209:
203:
200:
199:
194:
191:
190:
183:
180:
179:
172:
169:
168:
165:
163:
162:
155:
148:
140:
133:
130:
124:
121:
104:
101:
78:
77:
71:
70:
66:
65:
62:
61:Judges sitting
58:
57:
53:
52:
49:
45:
44:
42:House of Lords
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
506:
495:
492:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
477:
476:
474:
464:
461:E McGaughey,
460:
459:
455:
448:
445:E McGaughey,
442:
439:
433:
429:
426:
425:
421:
419:
416:
414:
413:UK labour law
411:
410:
403:
397:
392:
391:
385:
381:
380:
374:
369:
364:
359:
358:
350:
346:
345:
339:
334:
333:
327:
322:
321:
315:
311:
310:
304:
299:
294:
290:
289:
283:
278:
277:
271:
266:
265:
259:
254:
253:
247:
242:
241:
235:
230:
229:
223:
218:
217:
211:
206:
201:
197:
192:
188:
187:
181:
177:
176:
170:
161:
156:
154:
149:
147:
142:
141:
138:
131:
129:
122:
120:
116:
113:
109:
102:
100:
98:
94:
90:
89:UK labour law
86:
85:
76:
72:
67:
63:
59:
54:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
462:
446:
441:
422:
388:
377:
353:
342:
330:
323:2 All ER 293
318:
307:
286:
274:
262:
250:
238:
226:
214:
184:
173:
126:
117:
106:
87:ICR 29 is a
83:
82:
81:
18:
368:TULRCA 1992
473:Categories
456:References
370:ss 179-180
298:UCTA 1977
360:IRLR 287
335:IRLR 469
279:1 AC 294
231:1 Ch 310
219:2 KB 728
132:See also
123:Judgment
69:Keywords
48:Citation
428:UKSC 41
243:ICR 439
267:ICR 54
255:ICR 19
108:Ferodo
51:ICR 29
434:Notes
112:lathe
103:Facts
97:wages
38:Court
400:see
475::
300:ss
207:ss
393:`
159:e
152:t
145:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
