Pepper v Webb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE KARMINSKI |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1969 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1969] EWCA Civ J0220-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 February 1969 |
[1969] EWCA Civ J0220-2
Lord Justice Harman
Lord Justice Russell and
Lord Justice Karminski
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
The Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: His Honour Deputy Judge Blackett-Ord - Dorking County Court
Mr. BRIAN PRYOR (instructed by Messrs. Frere, Cholmeley & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Defendant).
Mr. BRIAN LEECH (instructed by Messrs. Rodgers, Honley & Burton) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
(without calling upon Counsel for the Appellant to reply)
This is an appeal from the Dorking County Court in an action for wrongful dismissal. The deputy County Court judge concluded his judgment on the case like this "But considering the matter as carefully as I can I am not satisfied that misconduct of Pepper" — that is the plaintiff — "justified summary dismissal. Even taking all together don't think add up to justify course taken up by Webb" — that is the defendant. "Think getting on that way" — which apparently means that it was a pretty near thing. in the judge's view. "Perhaps if Webb ever had given Pepper a good dressing down position would be different. Webb not justified in dismissing Pepper summarily without notice or wages". So that the learned deputy came to the conclusion, with some doubt, that the plaintiff's conduct did not merit summary dismissal without notice but it came somewhere near it and if the plaintiff had had a warning that something like that would happen if he went on as he did then the position might have been different. I myself do not accept that view.
The facts are within a small compass. The defendant, Major Webb, is a man with a large house near Dorking called Woodlands Park which has a garden of five or six acres, mostly decorative though with some kitchen garden, I gather. Like all people with places of that sort, he finds it very difficult to keep up. Both he and his wife are keen gardeners. He is also a busy man, having business interests in Kingston and away all day, and his wife does the day-to-day running of the place. She engaged the plaintiff in January of 1967 as head gardener and entered into a written contract, which is before us, from which it appears that the remuneration was £14 a week, there was free occupation of a cottage, part of it in consideration of his wife's services, and some electric light allowance; and the first clause ended up: "You will be responsible for maintaining your garden in a responsible manner": that was the cottage garden and had nothing to do with the main garden. "Hours of work: Subject to the usualresponsibilities of a head gardener. Your normal hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday with a lunch break of one hour, and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday". Then there is something about holidays. Then there is "Sickness or injury" and so on. No. 6 1st "Notice, (a) Period of notice by the employer: three months, (b) Period of notice by the employee: three months".
The plaintiff entered on that employment. About the time he did so his employers went away to the West Indies and they were away January, February and March. During that time he apparently worked very well. He was his own master: he had no employers to irritate him. When they came back at the end of March the defendant went round the garden with him and being very pleased increased his salary by £1 a week. But shortly thereafter trouble began. The defendant described himself as "a perfectionist". I dare say he was an irritating employer. The defendant's wife was an expert and she may have been rather exacting: I do not know. Anyhow the plaintiff began (as they said) to lose interest: he did not give satisfaction. There were complaints of inefficiency and an insolent manner — what the judge described as "dumb insolence" — at times. Things went on very uncomfortably during April, May and June, During part of that time he was very short of help; the promised second gardener did not turn up until May, though there was a third - jobbing - gardener from Monday to Friday.
The matter came to a head on the 10th June, when Mrs. Webb went out between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning and she then found that there were some fuchsia plants and geranium plants that had not yet been planted. She told the plaintiff to put them in at once or they would die. There had been a good many plants that had died, according to her, from neglect previously, though it is fair to say that he denies it — sweet peas in particular, and dahlias. Anyway on the morning of the 10th June she said "Put in these plants". There were fuchsias,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dooley v Great Southern Hotel
...a direct instruction from a superior, and this in itself merits instant dismissal. In this regard reference is made toPepper -v- Webb (1969) 2 ALL E.R. 216 where a gardener refused to obey his employers instructions in relation to certain plants, and it was held that this, coupled with inso......
-
Elphina Abraham v Sunny Caribbee Herbal and Spice Company Ltd
...(Trading) Ltd Magisterial Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2004 [unreported]—Written Judgment delivered on 27 June 2005. 6. Pepper v Webb [1969] 2 All E.R. 216. 7. B. Surinder Singh Kanda v The Government of the Federation of Malaya Privy Council Appeal No. 9 of 1961. CATCHWORDS Employment Law — wrong......
-
McClean vs Simon Community,Jim Dennison
...employment by the employee: see Wilson v Racher [1974] ICR 428, CA per Edmund Davies LJ at page 432 (citing Harman LJ in Pepper v Webb [1969] 1 WLR 514 at 517): `Now what will justify an instant dismissal? - something done by the employee which impliedly or expressly is a repudiation of the......
-
Raj Kumar Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire Nhs Trust
...…" See similarly Clouston & Co Ltd v Corry [1906] AC 122, Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 698 and Pepper v Webb [1969] 2 All ER 216. 75 Mr Hendy relies on Dietman v Brent LBC [1988] ICR 842 "as a classic case where such inquiry into the facts as there was, wa......
-
Can you sack someone for swearing at the boss?
...Swearing may not constitute grounds for dismissal The Symes case can be compared with the past seminal case of Pepper v Webb [1969] 1 WLR 514. Here a gardener was terminated after saying to his employer: "I couldn't care less about your bloody greenhouse and your sodding garden" and refusin......
-
STATUTORY REPUDIATION, NATURAL JUSTICE AND SECTION 13(2) OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT
...in interpreting s 13(2) of the Employment Act in relation to the statutory repudiation and natural justice issues. 51 See Pepper v Webb[1969] 2 All ER 216 (the employee had repudiated the employment contract in refusing to obey the lawful and reasonable order of his employer). 52 The Employ......