Knowledge (XXG)

Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board

Source 📝

259:
here, it is, I think, of this latter type. Carswell J. accepted the submission that any formulation of an implied term of this kind which would be effective to sustain the plaintiffs' claims in this case must necessarily be too wide in its ambit to be acceptable as of general application. I believe however that this difficulty is surmounted if the category of contractual relationship in which the implication will arise is defined with sufficient precision. I would define it as the relationship of employer and employee where the following circumstances obtain: (1) the terms of the contract of employment have not been negotiated with the individual employee but result from negotiation with a representative body or are otherwise incorporated by reference; (2) a particular term of the contract makes available to the employee a valuable right contingent upon action being taken by him to avail himself of its benefit; (3) the employee cannot, in all the circumstances, reasonably be expected to be aware of the term unless it is drawn to his attention. I fully appreciate that the criterion to justify an implication of this kind is necessity, not reasonableness. But I take the view that it is not merely reasonable, but necessary, in the circumstances postulated, to imply an obligation on the employer to take reasonable steps to bring the term of the contract in question to the employee’s attention, so that he may be in a position to enjoy its benefit. Accordingly I would hold that there was an implied term in each of the plaintiffs’ contracts of employment of which the boards were in each case in breach.
221:(or pension) benefits by the time they reached 60 years of age. But by law they could "top up" their superannuation by a lump sum purchase of added years of superannuation entitlement within twelve months of beginning their first period of employment in the Health and Social Services. Their employer did not inform them of this option within the twelve month time limit and therefore they were not in a position to take advantage of the enhancement. 35: 141: 258:
AC 239 between the search for an implied term necessary to give business efficacy to a particular contract and the search, based on wider considerations, for a term which the law will imply as a necessary incident of a definable category of contractual relationship. If any implication is appropriate
52: 502: 217:. In consequence of the long duration of undergraduate medical training, six years, they would not have been in paid employment for the requisite 40 years before retirement to get full 863: 292: 690: 232:
The House of Lords held that the employers had breached a contractual duty, implied into the employment contracts, to properly inform their employees about their rights.
796: 735: 704: 99: 567: 71: 244: 786: 78: 489: 224:
Reynold QC, counsel for the employees, argued a ‘necessary’ term of employment was information about exercising rights under the superannuation scheme.
868: 776: 674: 85: 858: 610: 454: 285: 238:, distinguished terms implied ‘in fact’ to reflect the parties’ unexpressed common intentions and those implied ‘in law’. He went on as follows. 67: 466: 848: 536: 422: 278: 560: 118: 386: 330: 213:
Dr Gabriel Scally and three other doctors were employees of either the Southern or Eastern Health and Social Services Boards in
92: 398: 374: 362: 648: 622: 410: 254: 56: 853: 764: 553: 524: 202: 180: 350: 478: 339: 45: 636: 513: 443: 755: 309: 194: 320: 17: 249: 214: 750: 660: 584: 694: 588: 815:
Health Services (Superannuation) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1974
790: 740: 720: 218: 842: 725: 198: 710: 680: 664: 780: 626: 598: 235: 34: 432: 270: 140: 545: 242:
A clear distinction is drawn in the speeches of Viscount Simonds in
263:
Lord Roskill, Lord Goff, Lord Jauncey and Lord Lowry concurred.
549: 274: 28: 134:
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board and others
68:"Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board" 173: 163: 155: 147: 133: 59:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 190:Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board 797:Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd 706:Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd 240: 561: 286: 8: 787:Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd 245:Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd 864:United Kingdom employment contract case law 568: 554: 546: 491:Alexander v Standard Telephones Ltd (No 2) 293: 279: 271: 139: 130: 119:Learn how and when to remove this message 777:Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman 691:Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v M&S plc 676:Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman 808: 611:Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw 455:Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority 467:Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board 7: 57:adding citations to reliable sources 736:Yam Seng v International Trade Corp 423:Crossley v Faithful & Gould Ltd 537:Employment contract in English law 25: 741:[2013] EWHC 111 (QB) 387:SS for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) 363:Sagar v Ridehalgh & Sons Ltd 331:Employment Information Directive 197:case, relevant for pensions and 33: 869:1992 in United Kingdom case law 399:System Floors (UK) Ltd v Daniel 375:Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets LBC 44:needs additional citations for 859:United Kingdom labour case law 649:Scally v Southern Health Board 411:Scally v Southern Health Board 255:Liverpool City Council v Irwin 18:Scally v Southern Health Board 1: 765:Implied terms in English law 525:Malone v British Airways plc 351:Devonald v Rosser & Sons 695:[2001] EWCA Civ 274 885: 479:French v Barclays Bank plc 340:Employment Rights Act 1996 849:English contract case law 762: 747: 732: 717: 701: 687: 671: 657: 645: 637:Johnstone v Bloomsbury HA 633: 619: 607: 595: 581: 533: 521: 514:Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd 510: 500: 486: 475: 463: 451: 440: 430: 419: 407: 395: 383: 371: 359: 347: 337: 328: 317: 306: 301:Employment contract cases 178: 168: 138: 711:[2009] UKPC 10 681:[2000] UKHL 39 665:[1997] UKHL 23 261: 627:[1976] UKHL 1 444:Keen v Commerzbank AG 854:House of Lords cases 623:Liverpool CC v Irwin 310:Johnson v Unisys Ltd 195:English contract law 53:improve this article 576:Implied terms cases 321:Gisda Cyf v Barratt 771: 770: 543: 542: 186: 185: 129: 128: 121: 103: 16:(Redirected from 876: 825: 822: 816: 813: 707: 677: 570: 563: 556: 547: 492: 295: 288: 281: 272: 250:Lord Wilberforce 215:Northern Ireland 143: 131: 124: 117: 113: 110: 104: 102: 61: 37: 29: 21: 884: 883: 879: 878: 877: 875: 874: 873: 839: 838: 833: 828: 823: 819: 814: 810: 806: 772: 767: 758: 751:Bhasin v Hrynew 743: 728: 713: 705: 697: 683: 675: 667: 661:Malik v BCCI SA 653: 641: 629: 615: 603: 602:(1889) 14 PD 64 591: 585:Hutton v Warren 577: 574: 544: 539: 529: 517: 506: 496: 490: 482: 471: 459: 447: 436: 426: 415: 403: 391: 379: 367: 355: 343: 333: 324: 313: 302: 299: 269: 230: 211: 193:1 AC 294 is an 125: 114: 108: 105: 62: 60: 50: 38: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 882: 880: 872: 871: 866: 861: 856: 851: 841: 840: 837: 836: 832: 829: 827: 826: 817: 807: 805: 802: 801: 800: 793: 783: 769: 768: 763: 760: 759: 748: 745: 744: 733: 730: 729: 721:Carter v Boehm 718: 715: 714: 702: 699: 698: 688: 685: 684: 672: 669: 668: 658: 655: 654: 646: 643: 642: 634: 631: 630: 620: 617: 616: 608: 605: 604: 596: 593: 592: 582: 579: 578: 575: 573: 572: 565: 558: 550: 541: 540: 534: 531: 530: 522: 519: 518: 511: 508: 507: 501: 498: 497: 487: 484: 483: 476: 473: 472: 464: 461: 460: 452: 449: 448: 441: 438: 437: 431: 428: 427: 420: 417: 416: 408: 405: 404: 396: 393: 392: 384: 381: 380: 372: 369: 368: 360: 357: 356: 348: 345: 344: 338: 335: 334: 329: 326: 325: 318: 315: 314: 307: 304: 303: 300: 298: 297: 290: 283: 275: 268: 265: 229: 226: 219:superannuation 210: 207: 184: 183: 176: 175: 171: 170: 166: 165: 161: 160: 157: 153: 152: 151:House of Lords 149: 145: 144: 136: 135: 127: 126: 41: 39: 32: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 881: 870: 867: 865: 862: 860: 857: 855: 852: 850: 847: 846: 844: 835: 834: 830: 824:1 AC 294, 307 821: 818: 812: 809: 803: 799: 798: 794: 792: 789: 788: 784: 782: 779: 778: 774: 773: 766: 761: 757: 753: 752: 746: 742: 738: 737: 731: 727: 723: 722: 716: 712: 709: 708: 700: 696: 693: 692: 686: 682: 679: 678: 670: 666: 663: 662: 656: 651: 650: 644: 639: 638: 632: 628: 625: 624: 618: 613: 612: 606: 601: 600: 594: 590: 589:EWHC Exch J61 587: 586: 580: 571: 566: 564: 559: 557: 552: 551: 548: 538: 532: 527: 526: 520: 516: 515: 509: 504: 499: 494: 493: 485: 481: 480: 474: 469: 468: 462: 457: 456: 450: 446: 445: 439: 434: 429: 425: 424: 418: 413: 412: 406: 401: 400: 394: 389: 388: 382: 377: 376: 370: 365: 364: 358: 353: 352: 346: 341: 336: 332: 327: 323: 322: 316: 312: 311: 305: 296: 291: 289: 284: 282: 277: 276: 273: 266: 264: 260: 257: 256: 251: 247: 246: 239: 237: 233: 227: 225: 222: 220: 216: 208: 206: 204: 203:implied terms 201:, concerning 200: 199:UK labour law 196: 192: 191: 182: 181:implied terms 177: 172: 167: 164:Case opinions 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 137: 132: 123: 120: 112: 101: 98: 94: 91: 87: 84: 80: 77: 73: 70: –  69: 65: 64:Find sources: 58: 54: 48: 47: 42:This article 40: 36: 31: 30: 27: 19: 820: 811: 795: 791:EWCA Civ 293 785: 775: 749: 734: 719: 703: 689: 673: 659: 647: 640:2 All ER 293 635: 621: 609: 599:The Moorcock 597: 583: 523: 512: 488: 477: 465: 458:2 All ER 293 453: 442: 421: 409: 397: 385: 373: 361: 349: 319: 308: 262: 253: 243: 241: 234: 231: 223: 212: 189: 188: 187: 115: 109:January 2021 106: 96: 89: 82: 75: 63: 51:Please help 46:verification 43: 26: 756:2014 SCC 71 503:TULRCA 1992 248:AC 555 and 236:Lord Bridge 169:Lord Bridge 843:Categories 831:References 726:97 ER 1162 505:ss 179-180 179:Pensions, 79:newspapers 433:UCTA 1977 781:1 AC 408 652:1 AC 294 495:IRLR 287 470:IRLR 469 414:1 AC 294 366:1 Ch 310 354:2 KB 728 267:See also 228:Judgment 174:Keywords 159:1 AC 294 156:Citation 754:, 724:(1766) 378:ICR 439 93:scholar 614:AC 701 402:ICR 54 390:ICR 19 95:  88:  81:  74:  66:  804:Notes 739: 209:Facts 148:Court 100:JSTOR 86:books 535:see 72:news 252:in 55:by 845:: 435:ss 342:ss 205:. 569:e 562:t 555:v 528:` 294:e 287:t 280:v 122:) 116:( 111:) 107:( 97:· 90:· 83:· 76:· 49:. 20:)

Index

Scally v Southern Health Board

verification
improve this article
adding citations to reliable sources
"Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board"
news
newspapers
books
scholar
JSTOR
Learn how and when to remove this message

implied terms
English contract law
UK labour law
implied terms
Northern Ireland
superannuation
Lord Bridge
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd
Lord Wilberforce
Liverpool City Council v Irwin
v
t
e
Johnson v Unisys Ltd
Gisda Cyf v Barratt
Employment Information Directive
Employment Rights Act 1996

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.