This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] ICR 480; [2001] 2 WLR 1076

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 06:35

Judgement for the case Johnson v Unisys Ltd

  • Plaintiff was summarily dismissed and sued for unfair dismissal.

    • He had claimed under the statutory scheme which led to him being awarded a small amount, but also appealed under a general common law duty of “trust and confidence” owed to employees, since, due to the manner of his dismissal, he suffered a mental breakdown. 

    • Plaintiff claimed that because of the (humiliating) manner in which he was sacked, his professional development and mental health were damaged.

    • He argued that the manner of his dismissal breached the term of mutual trust and confidence.

  • HL rejected this, saying this was a duty that only existed while Plaintiff remained in employment and did not relate to the manner in which he was sacked, because inevitably, when an employee is being sacked, it is because an employer no longer has trust and confidence in him.

    • Additionally, said that Parliament only intended limited compensation for being dismissed unfairly (whether on unfair substantive grounds or in an unfair procedure), and it would be to circumvent parliamentary legislation to imply a common law duty of mutual trust and confidence to the dismissal procedure.

  • For the same reason a tort-based claim was also rejected.

  • NB This means that while unfair suspension can lead to a claim for breach of the mutual obligation (see Gogay), unfair dismissal procedure cannot. 

  • NB, although Lord Steyn agreed with the outcome (since Plaintiff had not proven his claim) he disagrees with the majority since:

    1. The scheme’s tiny awards are clearly not intended to cover all cases;

    2. Duty and trust doctrine should apply to sacked employees, lest employers are better off suspending employees rather than sacking them;

    3. Addis is outdated and fails to acknowledge the importance of a person’s job to their life. 

Lord Hoffmann

  • Common law implied terms have been instrumental in revolutionising how we treat employment law (not merely in same way as rest of contract law), but cannot be used to circumvent parliamentary intention/legislation. 

  • In other scenarios (i.e. for breach of a term not in the context of dismissal) injured feelings, mental distress, and damage to reputation can be compensated (just not here). 

Lord Steyn (dissenting)

  • The statutory remedy for unfair dismissal is inadequate, e.g. where job prospects are seriously harmed. 

  • He said that just because parliament provided some rights to employees does not mean that other rights cannot be implied where there is no contradiction between the two. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Johnson v Unisys Ltd

Labour Law Notes
1,003 total pages
273 purchased

Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

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 Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Labour LawJob Security Notes (15 pages)
Labour LawWrongful Dismissal Notes (39 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
744 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...