Defendant was in financial difficulty and it became clear, once a potential investor withdrew interest, that the company would have to close.
Therefore all employees were dismissed by notice and the Defendant tried to argue that it wasn’t in breach of (forerunner to) Article 188 because the case fell within the exception under Article 188(7) of ‘special reasons’ for noncompliance.
CA held that the circumstances were not special and thus Defendant was in breach of 188.
Approach is to ask:
Were there special circumstances that
Rendered compliance with s.188 not reasonably impractical, and if so
Did the employers take all such steps as were reasonably practicable.
For (1) to be fulfilled there have to be circumstances special and specific to the offence, not to the offender.
Insolvency on its own is not a special circumstance - it depends on the cause of the insolvency, e.g. a sudden disaster might be unique, whereas a gradual running down would not.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.