Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc

Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc
Court	House of Lords
Full case name	Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall CC
Citation(s)	[2004] UKHL 35, [2004] IRLR 732
Keywords
Wrongful dismissal

Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35 is a UK labour law case concerning damages for wrongful dismissal, which were held to not be limited if a breach of contract occurs during the performance of the contract, rather than at the point of termination.

Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 2.1 Court of Appeal 2.2 House of Lords 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References

Facts

Mr Eastwood, and Mr Williams who stuck up for him in internal investigations, was victimised by his managers and were sacked after bogus sexual harassment disciplinaries. They came to an unfair dismissal settlement and then claimed further for wrongful dismissal and damages for psychiatric illness because of breach of good faith. Mr McCabe had succeeded in an unfair dismissal claim on grounds that indecent behaviour towards school pupils was never demonstrated, he was not informed of the allegations for 5 months, and the council failed to investigate his case, and then he claimed further for psychiatric illness.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal in Eastwood dismissed the appeal, but a different court in McCabe allowed the appeal.

Auld LJ, in McCabe, held that Gogay was distinguishable from Johnson because in Gogay damages related to dismissal but suspension ‘which manifestly contemplated the continuation of the employment relationship’. It was a question of fact whether the manner of dismissal is confined to events at the same time as or just before the actual dismissal. And ‘should the line be drawn between dismissal caught by legislation and conduct prior to it causing injury compensatable in damages at common law.’

House of Lords

The House of Lords awarded remedies for the employees in both cases. Although damages could not be claimed for any fault relating to the dismissal itself without reform through a statutory code, they could be claimed for breach of terms while the employment relationship subsisted.

Lord Nicholls said that the ‘Johnson exclusion area’ was grave. ‘This situation merits urgent attention by the government and legislature.’

Lord Steyn noted that the more outrageous the breach, the less likely it is that the employee can affirm the contract.

See also

Wrongful dismissal cases Employment Rights Act 1996 s 86 Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428 Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] UKHL 13 Gunton v Richmond-Upon Thames LBC [1980] ICR 755 McClelland v NI General Health Services [1957] 1 WLR 594 Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland [2000] UKHL 28 Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald Int [2004] EWCA Civ 1287 Reda v Flag Ltd [2002] UKPC 38 Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35 Barber v Somerset CC [2004] UKHL 13 Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth [1994] EWCA Civ 28 London Transport Executive v Clarke [1981] ICR 355 Hill v CA Parsons & Co Ltd [1972] Ch 305

Unfair dismissal cases ILO Convention 158 Employment Rights Act 1996 ss 92-123 R (Seymour-Smith) v SS for Employment [2000] UKHL 12 Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham [1992] ICR 183 Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1977] EWCA Civ 2 Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1982] ICR 693 Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 Notcutt v Universal Equipment Co Ltd [1986] EWCA Civ 3 Ford v Warwickshire CC [1983] ICR 273 British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR 17 Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] ICR 156 British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] EWCA Civ 3030 Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 Port of London Authority v Payne [1993] EWCA Civ 26 Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1972] EW Misc 1 Dunnachie v Kingston-upon-Hull CC [2004] UKHL 36 Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [1980] ICR 110

• UK labour law
• Unfair dismissal

Notes

References