Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets

[1989] IRLR 259 (CA)

Case summary last updated at 17/02/2020 21:51 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets

Ps were LA estate officers, whose duties included (as a small part of their overall work) answering the questions of elected councillors. As part of a dispute the union ordered Ps not to answer councillors’ questions. LA refused to pay Ps’ wages as long as they refused to answer the questions put to them. CA held that since P was acting in breach of his contract, D was entitled not to pay him (even though he was only breaching a small part of his contractual duties, and yet the LA were refusing to pay him for any of his work! However there may be a justification based on the dicta from Miles – see above).
 
Fox LJ: Based on the dicta of Lords Templeman and Brightman in Wakefield v Miles he concludes that if the employee is unwilling to perform the whole of his contract the employer can tell him not to attend work and does not have to pay him (unless he accepts partial performance, in which case the employee will get partial pay). If he does attend work, he does so voluntarily and is not entitled to a quantum meruit claim. 

Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets crops up in following areas of law