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

Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd [1986] ICR 414

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 07:32

Judgement for the case Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) Ltd

Table Of Contents

  • Plaintiff had medical advice that he was unlikely ever to be able to work again.

  • Defendant gave him notice, but refused to give him sick pay on the grounds that the contract had been frustrated by Plaintiff’s heart attack (that prevented him from working) so that it didn’t really have to give notice at all, let alone statutory sick pay.

  • CA agreed that the contract was frustrated. 

Dillon LJ

  • Under ERA there is an obligation to pay sick pay to an employee who is under notice, but if the contract was frustrated before this point then clearly there is no claim.

  • He says that frustration does apply to employment contracts, even though this allows the ERA to be avoided.

  • Using Lord Radcliffe’s definition from Davis Contractors he says that the inability of the employee perform work due to illness would render the mutual obligations radically different from those bargained for. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co (London) 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
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Labour Law Notes
1,003 total pages
273 purchased

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