Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers & Ors v Tesco Stores Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 978 (15 July 2022)

Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers & Ors v Tesco Stores Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 978 (15 July 2022)

The express terms of the contracts allowed Tesco to terminate employment on notice, and the term 'permanent' in the Retained Pay clause did not restrict this right. There was no clear mutual intention to limit Tesco's right to terminate for the purpose of removing Retained Pay. No implied term was necessary or obvious, and the pre-contractual statements did not create a clear and unequivocal promise. Promissory estoppel did not apply. The injunction granted by the High Court was inappropriate and uncertain. The appeal was allowed.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 978
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; Claimant/respondent: Christopher Webb; Claimant/respondent: Jagpreet Singh; Claimant/respondent: Sandeep Kumar; Defendant/appellant: Tesco Stores Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Collective Agreements, Wrongful Dismissal, Injunctions, Promissory Estoppel
Employment Law Contract Law Implied Terms Collective Agreements Wrongful Dismissal Injunctions Promissory Estoppel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers

Claimant/respondent

Christopher Webb

Claimant/respondent

Jagpreet Singh

Claimant/respondent

Sandeep Kumar

Claimant/respondent

Tesco Stores Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the term 'permanent' in the Retained Pay clause prevents Tesco from terminating contracts to remove Retained Pay
  2. 2 Whether a term should be implied restricting Tesco's right to terminate contracts for the purpose of removing Retained Pay
  3. 3 Whether promissory estoppel prevents Tesco from removing Retained Pay

Ratio Decidendi

The express terms of the contracts allowed Tesco to terminate employment on notice, and the term 'permanent' in the Retained Pay clause did not restrict this right. There was no clear mutual intention to limit Tesco's right to terminate for the purpose of removing Retained Pay. No implied term was necessary or obvious, and the pre-contractual statements did not create a clear and unequivocal promise. Promissory estoppel did not apply. The injunction granted by the High Court was inappropriate and uncertain. The appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Declaration and injunction granted by the High Court set aside.
  • Tesco is not restrained from terminating contracts to remove Retained Pay, subject to ordinary contractual and statutory rights.