Star Newspapers Ltd v Jordan [1993] UKEAT 344_93_2211 (22 November 1993)

Star Newspapers Ltd v Jordan [1993] UKEAT 344_93_2211 (22 November 1993)

The Tribunal was entitled to find an implied term that the employer, when altering the commission-earning area, must come to an agreement with the employee to prevent reduction in finances. The unilateral reduction in area resulting in substantial loss of income constituted a fundamental breach of contract, justifying constructive dismissal.

Citation
[1993] UKEAT 344_93_2211
Parties
Employer: Appellants; Employee: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Remuneration, Commission, Trust and Confidence
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Implied Terms Breach of Contract Remuneration Commission Trust and Confidence

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellants

Employer

Respondent

Employee

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unilateral reduction in commission-earning area constitutes constructive dismissal
  2. 2 Whether implied terms regarding remuneration exist in employment contracts
  3. 3 Whether breach of implied term amounts to fundamental breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find an implied term that the employer, when altering the commission-earning area, must come to an agreement with the employee to prevent reduction in finances. The unilateral reduction in area resulting in substantial loss of income constituted a fundamental breach of contract, justifying constructive dismissal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Industrial Tribunal's decision upheld
  • Compensation of £7,506 to Respondent confirmed