Zuphen v. Kelly Technical Services (Ireland) Ltd. [2000] IEHC 117 (24th May, 2000)

Zuphen v. Kelly Technical Services (Ireland) Ltd. [2000] IEHC 117 (24th May, 2000)

The contracts were not frustrated by the loss of the Eircom contract because the event was not so unexpected as to be beyond the contemplation of the parties, the contracts were not conditional on Eircom work, and the Defendants' ability to procure alternative work indicated the contracts were not incapable of performance.

Citation
[2000] IEHC 117
Parties
Plaintiffs: South African technicians; Defendant: Kelly Technical Services (first named Defendant); Defendant: Second named Defendant (recruitment company); Director: Raymond Kelly (third named Defendant); Director: Declan Kelly (fourth named Defendant)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Frustration
Outcome
Contracts not frustrated; Plaintiffs succeed on preliminary issue.
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Termination of Employment, Master and Servant Relationship
Employment Law Contract Law Frustration of Contract Termination of Employment Master and Servant Relationship

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African technicians

Plaintiffs

Kelly Technical Services (first named Defendant)

Defendant

Second named Defendant (recruitment company)

Defendant

Raymond Kelly (third named Defendant)

Director

Declan Kelly (fourth named Defendant)

Director

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Frustration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment contracts were frustrated by the termination of work by Eircom Plc
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were discharged from performance of the contracts
  3. 3 Whether the contracts were conditional on Eircom work being available

Ratio Decidendi

The contracts were not frustrated by the loss of the Eircom contract because the event was not so unexpected as to be beyond the contemplation of the parties, the contracts were not conditional on Eircom work, and the Defendants' ability to procure alternative work indicated the contracts were not incapable of performance.

Court Disposition

Contracts not frustrated; Plaintiffs succeed on preliminary issue.

Orders

  • Declaration that purported determination of employment is null, void and of no effect.
  • Employment contracts valid and subsisting until 27th September, 2000.