Graham v. R. & S. Paton, Ltd [1917] ScotLR 213 (10 January 1917)

Graham v. R. & S. Paton, Ltd [1917] ScotLR 213 (10 January 1917)

The pursuer committed no breach of contract as he did not enter into any competing contract during his employment; mere adoption of a contract to take effect after employment does not justify dismissal. The dismissal was unjustifiable, and the pursuer is entitled to remuneration and share of profits up to the end of his employment.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 213
Parties
Pursuer: Samuel William Graham; Defenders: R. & S. Paton, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 January 1917
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Competition With Employer
Employment Law Contract Law Master and Servant Dismissal Breach of Contract Competition With Employer

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel William Graham

Pursuer

R. & S. Paton, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the pursuer justifiably dismissed for breach of contract?
  2. 2 Is the pursuer entitled to remuneration and share of profits after summary dismissal?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer committed no breach of contract as he did not enter into any competing contract during his employment; mere adoption of a contract to take effect after employment does not justify dismissal. The dismissal was unjustifiable, and the pursuer is entitled to remuneration and share of profits up to the end of his employment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutors of the Sheriff and Sheriff-Substitute recalled.
  • Remitted to Sheriff-Substitute to appoint defenders to lodge an account of profits and proceed.