Employment and Labour Law in UK Law

The trust and confidence required in the employment relationship can be undermined by an employer, or indeed an employee, in many different ways. The conduct must, of course, impinge on the relationship in the sense that, looked at objectively, it is likely to destroy or seriously damage the degree of trust and confidence the employee is reasonably entitled to have in his employer.

This head of damage only arises where a plaintiff is at the time of the trial in employment, but there is a risk that he may lose this employment at some time In the future, and may then, as a result of his Injury, be at a disadvantage in getting another job or an equally well paid job.It is a different head of damages from an actual lose of future earnings which can already be proved at the time of the trial.

In an action for personal injuries the damages are always divided into two main parts. First, there is what is referred to as special damage which has to be specially pleaded and proved. This consists of out-of-pocket expenses and loss of earnings incurred down to the date of trial, and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation. Secondly, there is general damage which the law implies and is not specially pleaded.

By contrast, a real danger of bias might well be thought to arise if there were personal friendship or animosity between the judge and any member of the public involved in the case; or if the judge were closely acquainted with any member of the public involved in the case, particularly if the credibility of that individual could be significant in the decision of the case; or if, in a case where the credibility of any individual were an issue to be decided by the judge, he had in a previous case rejected the evidence of that person in such outspoken terms as to throw doubt on his ability to approach such person's evidence with an open mind on any later occasion; or if on any question at issue in the proceedings before him the judge had expressed views, particularly in the course of the hearing, in such extreme and unbalanced terms as to throw doubt on his ability to try the issue with an objective judicial mind (see Vakauta v. Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568); or if, for any other reason, there were real ground for doubting the ability of the judge to ignore extraneous considerations, prejudices and predilections and bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him.

The act does not have to be of the same character as the earlier acts. Its essential quality is that, when taken in conjunction with the earlier acts on which the employee relies, it amounts to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It must contribute something to that breach, although what it adds may be relatively insignificant.

If he or his advisers could reasonably have been so expected, it was his or their fault, and he must take the consequences. That was the view adopted by the employment appeal tribunal in Scotland in House of Clydesdale Limited v. Foy (1976) Industrial Relations Law Reports 391 and in England in Times Newpapers v. O'Regan (1977) Industrial Relations Law Reports 101 - decisions with which I agree.

A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence, at any rate, as against him, as to the real reason, but it does notnecessarily constitute the real reason.