bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
SANDERSON v. MILLOM HEMATITE AND IRON ORE CO. LTD.
Authors: Cantley J.
Published: January 2008

June 29, 1967 Mines — Quarry — Fall of stone from face — Face inspection at 8.30 a.m. but not immediately preceding work by men at foot of face — Whether proper inspection — Probability that stone fall caused by superincumbent load, lifting shots and rain — No system of notifying manager of direction to workers to carry out dangerous operation — Whether proper system — Man directed to work in dangerous place without manager's knowledge — Death of man from stone fall — Whether reasonable care taken for man's safety — “… Close and effective supervision … by manager” — Whether manager supervising if unaware of operation — “Duty to avoid dangers from falls” — Whether absolute — “Defence … that… impracticable to avoid or prevent … contravention” of statutory provision — Onus of proof — Whether discharged by defendants — Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz.II, c.70), ss.l03(l), 108(1), 157.
KEANEY v. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
Authors: Harman L.J. , Davies L.J. , Winn L.J.
Published: January 2008

March 13, 1968 Statutory duty — Railway — Provision of a look‐out — Sub‐gang instructed by sub‐inspector to repair broken bolts — Ganger in charge of sub‐gang — No look‐out contemplated or appointed — No train expected during work — Ganger killed by diverted train — Knowledge of railwayman that trains likely to be diverted — Whether “danger…likely to arise” — Responsibility for look‐out — Whether duty of sub‐inspector or ganger — Whether contributory negligence — Prevention of Accidents Rules, 1902, (S.R.& 0.1902, No. 616),r.9.
O'BRIEN v. U.D.E.C. LTD.
Authors: Danckwerts L.J. , Diplock L.J. , Sachs L.J.
Published: January 2008

March 14, 1968 Building — Safety regulations — Application — Painters engaged in cleaning and dusting prior to painting — Fall from unlashed ladder — Breach of regulation 29(4), if regulations applicable — Whether dusting included in operation of “redecoration” — Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948 (S.I. 1948, No.1145), reg.2(1).
McDOWELL V. F.M.C. (MEAT) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Authors: Willmer L.J. , Diplock L.J. , Davies Edmund
Published: January 2008

April 3, 1968 Occupier's Liability — Common duty of care — High tension cable — Agricultural show — Uninsulated high tension wire crossing show site — Flagpole being erected by exhibitors' employee — Employee electrocuted by pole coming into contact with high tension wire — Whether unusual danger — Whether duty to warn — Necessity for notices on site — Contributory negligence — Experienced employee — Whether insufficient care taken for own safety — Occupiers' Liability Act, 1957 (5 & 6 Eliz.II, c.31), s.2.
REGINA v. INDUSTRIAL INJURIES COMMISSIONER, EX PARTE HOWARTH
Authors: Denning M.R. , Danckwerts L.J. , Davies Edmund
Published: January 2008

June 12, 1968 National Insurance — Disablement benefit — Industrial accident — Medical board's final assessment of disablement at 20 per cent. — Minister's reference to Medical Appeal Tribunal as too high — Tribunal's discharge of board's award on ground of no loss of faculty from accident — Whether contrary to natural justice — Burden of proof — Whether on applicant — Tribunal's reasons ambiguous — Effect — National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965 (c.52), ss. 12(1), 48(4), (5), Sch.4 — National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Determination of Claims and Questions) No.2 Regulations, 1967 (S.1. 1967 No.1571).
BAKER v. WILLOUGHBY
Authors: Harman L.J. , Widgery L.J. , Atkinson Fenton
Published: January 2008

December 10, 1968 Damages — Personal injuries — Assessment — Subsequent independent injury — Injuries to left leg — Subsequent amputation of leg before trial owing to other causes — Whether to be taken into account — Whether damages to be reduced — Apportionment — Principles on which Court of Appeal will interfere.
McARTHUR v. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
Authors: Eveleigh J.
Published: January 2008

November 25, 1968 Negligence — Safe system of work — Burden of proof — Railway — Appreciable daily risk known of danger to engine driver — Whether employer's liability depending on extent of risk and nature of necessary avoiding steps — Plaintiff adducing evidence of several feasible and reasonable possibilities for minimising risk — Whether onus on plaintiff to state specific possibility economically acceptable for adoption by employers — Whether employers negligent — Driver killed on musjudging precise position in relation to bridge — Whether contributory negligence.
ROY v. CO‐ORDINATED TRAFFIC SERVICES
Authors: Denning M.R. , Davies Edmund , Phillimore L.J.
Published: January 2008

February 12, 1969 Negligence — Safe system of work — Defective unloading device — Workmen providing hooks to assist unloading — Use of books known to employers — No instructions to workmen as to proper use — Workman injured while using hook — Whether negligent — Liability of employers.
MORTER v. ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS LTD. AND OTHERS
Authors: Donaldson J.
Published: January 2008

January 27, 1969 Building — Safety regulations — Applicability — Replacing system of lighting in dock — Whether “repair or maintenance” of a building and so “building operation” — Wire rope on dock — Whether place of work “so far as is reasonably practicable … made and kept safe” — Whether wire rope and dunnage on dock “loose materials” — Whether safe system of work.
MALLET v. McMONAGLE
Authors: Reid  , of Borth‐y‐Gest Morris , Pearce  , Wilberforce  , Diplock
Published: January 2008

February 11, 1969 Damages — Assessment — Fatal Accidents Acts — Dependency — Standard application — Inflation of currency — Not to be taken into account — Disturbance of jury's assessment on appeal.
HEWSON v. DOWNS AND ANOTHER
Authors: Park J.
Published: January 2008

March 14, 1969 Damages — Personal injuries — Assessment — Pension — Retirement Pension — Pension payable by State — Plaintiff forced to retire early because of defendant's negligence — Whether retirement pension to be taken into account — Loss of increase in pension paid by employers — Whether recoverable.
BOYLE v. KODAK LTD.
Authors: Reid  , of Borth‐y‐Gest Morris , Hodson  , Upjohn  , Diplock
Published: January 2008

April 29, 1969 Building — Safety regulations — Technical breach — Regulation requiring top of ladder to be lashed before use — Staircase giving access to top of ladder — Scaling of ladder by workman to lash it — No instruction to use staircase — Fall of ladder causing injury to workman — Liability of employers — Whether workman wholly to blame — Whether oil storage tank a “building” — Applicability of safety regulations — Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948 (S.I. 1948, No. 1145), regs. 4, 29(4).
CHISMAN v. ELECTROMATION (EXPORT) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Authors: Denning M.R. , Davies Edmund , Phillimore L.J.
Published: January 2008

February 19, 1969 Negligence — Apportionment of blame — “Last opportunity” — Lorry parked at night on wrong side of road — Plaintiff's car in head on collision with lorry — Whether parties to blame — Whether doctrine of last opportunity applicable — Fault and causation.
LEWIS v. MATTHEW SWAIN LTD.
Authors: Salmon L.J. , Winn L.J. , Atkinson Fenton
Published: January 2008

April 15, 1969 Foundry — Safety regulations — Cupola or furnace — Plaintiff collecting molten metal from cupola — Working within 12 feet of cupola's spout — Whether necessary for the proper use of the cupola — Whether breach of Statutory duty — Iron and Steel Foundries Regulations 1953 (S.I. 1953 No. 1464) reg. 5.
RODGERS v. LONDON BRICK CO. LTD.
Authors: Roskill J.
Published: January 2008

April 24, 1969 Mines and quarries — Act of 1954 — Duty to fence — Construction — Hoisting tractor out of clay pit — Nip between ram connecting cylinder with scarifying bar on back of tractor — Slip by employee trapping foot in nip — Whether ram a reasonably foreseeable cause of injury — Whether a “dangerous” exposed part of machinery — Whether duty to fence — Rope from crane not long enough to reach if tractor on level ground — Tractor backed up to bottom of slope — Whether failure to provide longer rope breach of common law duty — Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz.II, c.70) ss.82,115(a).
MORRIS v. C.H. BAILEY LTD.
Authors: Salmon L.J. , Winn L.J. , Atkinson Fenton
Published: January 2008

May 2, 1969 Master and Servant — Wrongful dismissal — Trade union member — Contract of employment incorporating agreement between employers' association and union — Employers' association terminating agreement by notice to union district delegate — Effect on contract of employment between union member and employer — Whether contract of employment terminated.
MURPHY v. STONE WALLWORK (CHARLTON) LTD.
Authors: Reid  , Pearce  , Upjohn Loid , Donovan  , Pearson
Published: January 2008

June 18, 1969 Damages — Evidence — Fresh Evidence — Appeal on quantum — Assessment — Change of circumstances after judgment — Fresh evidence admitted — Amount increased.
MARRIOTT v. OXFORD AND DISTRICT CO‐OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (NO. 2)
Authors: Denning M.R. , Winn L.J. , Cross L.J.
Published: January 2008

July 23,1969 Redundancy — Dismissal — Diminishing work — Employer unable to retain employee in same position — Letter offering employment at reduced wage and status — “Offer in writing” — Employee continuing in employment under protest before finding new employment — Whether original contract of employment terminated by offer of employment at reduced rate — Whether employee “dismissed” — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c. 62), ss. 3(1) (a),(2) (b), 2(4).
DUCKWORTH v. P.F. FARNISH & CO. LTD.
Authors: Russell L.J. , Salmon L.J. , Megaw L.J.
Published: January 2008

October 27, 1969 Redundancy — Dismissal — Employee loaned to another firm — Employee's insurance and tax documents transferred to other firm without his knowledge — Employee paid by other firm — Whether “dismissal” — Whether employee entitled to terminate contract “by reason of the employer's conduct” — Whether question of law — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62), ss. 1, 3 (1) (c).
VACWELL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. B.D.H. CHEMICALS LTD.
Authors: Rees J.
Published: January 2008

July 18, 1969 Contract — Sale of Goods — Implied term — Fitness for purpose — Sale of chemicals by manufacturer to engineering company — Sold in glass ampoules — Explosion occurring on chemicals' contact with water — Fatal accident and extensive damage to property — No warning of explosion hazard — Liability under contract — Extent of — Sale of Goods Act, 1893, (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71) s. 14 (1).
BAKER v. WILLOUGHBY
Authors: Reid  , Guest  , Dilhorne Viscount , Donovan  , Pearson
Published: January 2008

November 26, 1969 Damages — Personal injuries — Assessment — Successive independent tortfeasors — Action for damages for injuries to leg sustained in road accident — Subsequent amputation of leg before trial due to injury by person other than defendant — Effect on assessment of damages for injuries inflicted by defendant — Disabilities due to concurrent causes — Whether damages to be diminished.
PEAT v. N. J. MUSCHAMP & CO. LTD.
Authors: Davies L.J. , Widgery L.J. , Karminski L.J.
Published: January 2008

November 6, 1969 Factory — Statutory duty — Breach — Disabled workman sustaining injury while lifting weight — Told previously by employers to ask for help in lifting weights if necessary — Help readily available — Whether “employed to lift, carry or move … load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him” — Whether employers entitled to leave decision to ask for help to plaintiff — Safe system of work — Failure of employers to provide — Whether established — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 72(1).
EDWARDS v. SOCIETY OF GRAPHICAL AND ALLIED TRADES
Authors: Buckley J.
Published: January 2008

November 27, 1969 Trade Union — Expulsion — Skilled printer employed by printers with 100 per cent, trade union membership — Employee dismissed after union membership wrongfully terminated — Employment obtained in non‐union shop — Dismissal after refusal to do labourer's work — Right of employee to refuse — Readmission to union — Shortage of skilled work — Refusal to take labourer's jobs offered by union — Whether failure to mitigate damages — No foreseeable prospect of skilled work — Measure of damages.
LOWERY v. VICKERS ARMSTRONG (ENGINEERS) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Authors: Russell L.J. , Salmon L.J. , Megaw L.J.
Published: January 2008

November 14, 1969 Contract — Construction — Supply of gas — Indemnity — Consumers to indemnify gas board against claims for injury or damage “caused by any action … of the consumers, their servants or agents whether arising directly or indirectly out of the supply of any gas or apparatus” — Escape of gas from faulty main — Explosion touched off by act of consumers' employee — Negligence — Board mainly liable v Whether entitled to be indemnified for own negligence.
JENKINS v. ALLIED FOUNDRIES LTD.
Authors: Reid  , Hodson  , Guest  , Dilhorne Viscount , Upjohn
Published: January 2008

November 27, 1969 Factory — Maintenance — Floor — Freedom from Obstruction — Obligation — Foundry — Sand floor — Pieces of metal embedded — Whether “reasonably practicable” to keep floor clear — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz.II,c.34), s.28(1).
JOHNSON v. F.E. CALLOW (ENGINEERS) LTD.
Authors: Atkinson Fenton , Karminski L.J. , Willmer Gordon
Published: January 2008

October 24, 1969 Factory — Statutory duty — Dangerous machinery — Dangerous combination of machinery and material — Danger arising from “nip” between moving work‐piece and stationary bar — Automatic cooling device — Danger arising from coolant applied by hand — Practice known to employers — Whether foreseeable — Whether duty to fence — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 14(1).
McKEW v. HOLLAND & HANNEN & CUBITTS (SCOTLAND) LTD.
Authors: Reid  , Hodson  , Guest  , Dilhorne Viscount , Upjohn
Published: January 2008

November 26, 1969 Master and Servant — Negligence — Injury to servant — Remoteness — Slight leg injury in course of employment — Second injury not at work caused through jumping downstairs — Allegation that leg weakness caused second accident — Novus actus interveniens.
SCM (UNITED KINGDOM) LTD v. W.J. WHITTALL AND SON LTD.
Authors: Thesiger J.
Published: January 2008

March 16, 1970 Negligence — Duty of care — Damage to electric cable by workmen building wall on road — Resulting power failure in near‐by factory — Damage to plant and machinery and loss of day's production in factory — Claim for damages by factory owner — Whether damage too remote — Liability of defendant — Whether actionable nuisance.
GALLAGHER AND ANOTHER v. POST OFFICE
Authors: Brightman J.
Published: January 2008

July 29, 1970 Trade Union — Recognition of — Post Office employees — Two recognised trade unions — New Act setting up Post Office as public corporation — Employment of former employees continued — Variation in Terms and conditions of employment to be subject to discussion or negotiation with “appropriate staff associations” — New corporation's decision to recognise only one union — Notification to members of withdrawal of recognition from other union — Whether a breach of contract — Whether ultra vires and in breach of statutory duty — Post Office Act, 1969 (c.48) Sch.1, para.11.
MULLARD v. BEN LINE STEAMERS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Authors: Davies L.J. , Sachs L.J. , Karminski L.J.
Published: January 2008

June 26, 1970 Master and Servant — Breach of statutory duty — Unfenced hatch on ship — Fall by workman — Workman negligent in entering unlighted compartment — Proper apportionment of liability where continuous breach of statutory duty by employer — Workman seriously injured — Differing “agreed” medical reports — Duty of judge to call for oral evidence.
LEARY v. NATIONAL UNION OF VEHICLE BUILDERS
Authors: Megarry J.
Published: January 2008

March 20, 1970 Trade Union — Expulsion — Rules of natural justice — Rules providing for exclusion of member for arrears of contribution — Power to exclude in branch committee — Member in arrears — Excluded by branch committee without his knowledge — No opportunity to meet charge — Participation at meeting by person not a committee member — Proceedings contrary to natural justice — Full hearing by appeals council in presence of member — Whether want of natural justice at branch committee cured.
LEE AND ANOTHER v. BARRY HIGH LTD.
Authors: Denning M.R. , Atkinson Fenton , Cairns L.J.
Published: January 2008

October 13, 1970 Redundancy — Redundancy payment — Entitlement — Apprentices — Deeds of apprenticeship making apprenticeships assignable — Apprentices serving three masters during five‐year period — Whether “continuously employed” — Meaning — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62), ss.1(1), 8 (1) (2) — Contracts of Employment Act, 1963 (c.49), Sch. 1, para. 10(1).
ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS v. FLYNN AND OTHERS
Authors: Pennycuick V.‐C.
Published: January 2008

December 1, 1970 Trade dispute — Political strike — Union protesting against Government's proposed legislation — Call to newspaper employees to strike — Whether in furtherance or contemplation of “trade dispute” — Whether trade dispute in existence between employers and workmen — Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. VII, c.47), ss.3, 5 (3).
REGINA v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONER EX PARTE MELLORS
Authors: Denning M.R. , Sachs L.J. , Buckley L.J.
Published: January 2008

January 12, 1971 National Insurance — Industrial injuries benefit — Disablement benefit — Special hardship allowance — “Standard of remuneration” — Method of calculation of amount — National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965 (c.52), s. 14(6).
BREEN v. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION AND OTHERS
Authors: Denning M.R. , Davies Edmund , Megaw L.J.
Published: January 2008

January 28,1971 Trade union — Rules — Discretion conferred on domestic tribunal to approve or disapprove elected shop steward — Committee decision not to endorse elected shop steward — One of three reasons given erroneous and defamatory of shop steward — Action for declarations and damages — Finding by trial judge that bad reason played no part in committee's decision — Appellate court bound by judge's finding — Whether decision not to approve election within committee discretion.
LIMB & CO. (STEVEDORES) v. BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BOARD
Authors: Baker J.
Published: January 2008

October 12, 13; November 5,1970 Dock — Dock workers — Licence to employ — Application by firm for licence to employ dock workers — Firm transferring business and assets to company — Conditional licence granted to company — Whether application for licence refused — Whether firm entitled to compensation for diminution of business's assets — Docks and Harbours Act, 1966(14 & 15 Eliz II, c.28),s.l3.
RANSOM v. SIR ROBERT McALPlNE & SONS LTD. DANIELS v. SIR ROBERT McALPlNE & SONS LTD.
Authors: Cusack J.
Published: January 2008

March 12, 1971 Compressed air work — Breach of statutory duty — Negligence — Caisson disease in form of bone necrosis — Causation — Faulty decompression procedure and equipment — Whether risk reasonably foreseeable by employers — The Work in Compressed Air Special Regulations, 1958 (SJ. 1958,No. 61),regs. 4(1), 6,8(1), 8(2) (a), 10(1) and 10(3).
SARWAR v. SIMMONS & HAWKER LTD.
Authors: Davies L.J. , Karminski L.J. , Stamp L.J.
Published: January 2008

June 25, 1971 Factory — Dangerous machinery — Capstan lathe — Danger caused by tool used to adjust jig — Jig not fenced — Accident occurring whilst jig being tightened — Whether tool part of machine — Whether duty to fence — Factories Act, 1961 (9&10 Eliz. II,c.34),s. 14(1).
YOUNG AND OTHERS v. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD. AND OTHERS
Authors: Brightman
Published: January 2008

26, 27, May; 21 June, 1971 Redundancy — Dismissal — Pensions fund providing for deferred pensions if “retiring with the consent of the company” — Whether employees entitled to deferred pensions if dismissed as redundant — Terms of contract of employment entitling to certain payments under house agreement in case of redundancy — Whether house agreement still in force — Whether plaintiffs entitled to payments as contingently “earned”.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY v. WAYTE
Authors: Davies L.J. , Karminski L.J. , Roskill L.J.
Published: January 2008

October 19, 1971 Insurance — National Insurance contributions — Employer's liability — Employer a “body corporate” — Failure by limited company to pay contributions in respect of employees — Conviction and order for payment of arrears — Company in voluntary liquidation — Failure to satisfy order — Claim against former managing director — Not a director at date of magistrates' order — Whether liable — National Insurance Act, 1965 (c.5l) ss.8(2), 95(3) (8).
SMITH v. GEORGE WIMPEY & CO. LTD. AND JOHN LAING & SON LTD.
Authors: Denning M.R. , Megaw L.J. , Stamp L.J.
Published: January 2008

March 22, 1972 Building and Construction — Working places regulations — Main contractor in occupation of motorway site — Subcontractors' employee injured by fall on path used as alternative means of access to and egress from working place — Whether main contractor capable of being liable to subcontractors' employee for damages for breach of regulation relating to safe access — Whether under duty to comply with “such requirements” of safe access regulation “as affect him…” to cover subcontractors' employees — Whether duty extended by addition of two words in regulation — Conflicting decision on scope of amended regulation resolved — Construction (Working Places) Regulations, 1966 (S.I. 1966 No. 94) regs. 3(1) (a) (b), 6(1) — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c 34) s.76(2).
JOY v. NEWS OF THE WORLD
Authors: Bean J.
Published: January 2008

May 12, 1972 Factory — Provision of fencing or other safeguards — To be kept in position while machine in motion or use — Meaning of “in motion or use” — Factories Act, 1961 (9 &10 Eliz. II, c.34),s. 16.
CENTRAL ASBESTOS CO. LTD. v. DODD
Authors: Reid  , of Borth‐y‐Gest Morris , Pearson  , of Glaisdale Simon , Salmon
Published: January 2008

June 28, 1972 Limitation of action — Asbestosis — Workman contracting insidious disease over number of years through employers' breach of statutory duty — Action commenced more than one year after giving up work — Lack of knowledge that disease attributable to breach of duty — Whether workman entitled to bring action outside period — Limitation Act 1963 (c.47) ss. 1(3), 7(3).
UNITED KINGDOM ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND NEWELL v. AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISORY SECTION) AND OTHERS
Authors: Donaldson John , Boyfield R. , Robinson C.G.
Published: January 2008

April 28, 1972 Industrial Court — Collective bargaining — Commission on Industrial Relations — Reference to — Refusal by union members to handle products from other union — Whether irregular industrial action — Whether unfair industrial practice — Industrial Relations Act 1971 (c.72) ss.33(4), 54(4).
McGUINESS v. KEY MARKETS LTD.
Authors: Sachs L.J. , Phillimore L.J. , Roskill L.J.
Published: January 2008

October 5, 1972 Factory — Statutory duty — Breach by employer — Meat slicing machinery — Finger injuries — Guard provided by employer habitually not used — Guard not used by manager in slicing operation continued by employee — Contributory negligence by employee — Proper apportionment of liability where continuous breach of statutory duty by employer — Proper award for finger injuries — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34) s. 14(1).
McGHEE v. NATIONAL COAL BOARD
Authors: Reid  , Wilberforce  , of Glaisdale Simon , Kilbrandon  , Salmon
Published: January 2008

November 15, 1972 Negligence — Duty of care — Brick kiln — Workman exposed to dust — Dermatitis contracted — No washing facilities provided — Material increase in risk of contracting disease — Material contribution to contracting disease — Employers' liability.
PENROSE v. FAIREY SURVEYS LTD.
Authors: Donaldson John , Boyfield R. , Johnston T.L.
Published: January 2008

November 16, 1972 Industrial relations — Unfair dismissal — Employee given notice of dismissal — Application for compensation for unfair dismissal before expiry of notice — Finding by tribunal no jurisdiction — Time of dismissal — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss. 22, 23(1), (2).
HEATONS TRANSPORT (ST. HELENS) LTD. v. TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION CRADDOCK BROTHERS v. SAME PANALPINA SERVICES LTD. PANALPINA (NORTHERN) LTD. v. SAME
Authors: Wilberforce  , Pearson  , Diplock  , of Chelsea Cross , Salmon
Published: January 2008

July 26, 1972 Industrial Relations — Unregistered trade union — Shop stewards — “Blacking” container lorries — Court orders on union to stop such action — Union advice to obey court orders unheeded — Whether implied authority from union for conduct of shop stewards as its agents — Whether agents' conduct outside scope of authority — Whether union guilty of wilful contempt of court — Whether union liable for unfair industrial practices — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss. 99(1) (a), (b), 101,116,154,167(1), (9).
SPARTAN STEEL & ALLOYS LTD. v. MARTIN & CO. (CONTRACTORS) LTD.
Authors: Denning M.R. , Davies Edmund , Lawton L.J.
Published: January 2008

June 22,1972 Damages — Remoteness — Negligence — Economic loss — Contractors damaging cable supplying electricity to factory — Physical damage to metal in factory's furnace as result of power cut — Loss of profit from “melt” and from further melts which would have taken place if no power cut — Whether economic loss recoverable — Whether economic loss attaching to physical loss recoverable — Doctrine of parasitic damages.
LEES v. ARTHUR GREAVES (LEES) LTD.
Authors: Cooke Samuel , Boyfield R. , Johnston T.L.
Published: January 2008

December 14, 1972 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Jurisdiction — Notice given before and expiring after coming into force of statutory protection — Payment of wages in lieu of remaining notice — Whether contract terminated when notice given or when expiring — Whether jurisdiction to award compensation for unfair dismissal — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), s. 23(2) (5).
CHAPMAN AND OTHERS v. GOONVEAN AND ROSTOWRACK CHINA CLAY COMPANY LTD.
Authors: Denning M.R. , Buckley L.J. , Orr L.J.
Published: January 2008

April 16, 1973 Master and servant — Redundancy — “Dismissal” — Employers providing free transport as term of contract of employment — Free transport withdrawn for reasons of economy — Employees with no alternative means of transport giving notice — Former workers replaced by same number of workers living near to works — Employers' requirement for employees to carry out same work not ceasing or diminishing — Whether employees “dismissed” for unwillingness to accept new conditions of employment “dismissed by reason of redundancy” — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62), ss.1(2), 2 (3) (4).
PAYNE v. PETER BENNIE LTD.
Authors: Shaw J.
Published: January 2008

March 13, 1973 Master and Servant — Negligence — Safe system of work — Eyes, protection of — Forseeable risk — Workman required to carry out work outside ambit of normal duties in circumstances of danger without proper instruction or supervision — Workman losing eye — Whether negligence — Whether risk of injury to workman reasonably forseeable by employer.
CLARKSON INTERNATIONAL TOOLS LTD. v. SHORT
Authors: Donaldson John , Briggs H. , Arkell J.H.
Published: January 2008

February 5, 1973 Industrial relations — Unfair dismissal — Compensation — Employee dismissed for redundancy — No prior warning of dismissal — No financial loss arising from failure to consult — Whether failure rendered dismissal unfair — Whether compensation payable — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss.24(6), 116.
JONES AND ANOTHER v. ASTON CABINET CO. LTD.
Authors: Griffiths Hugh , Boyfield R. , Briggs H.
Published: January 2008

March 19, 1973 Master and servant — Redundancy — “Offer of suitable employment” — Onus of proof — Whether onus on employer or employee — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62), s.2(4).
LANGSTON v. AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS AND ANOTHER
Authors: Donaldson John , Boyfield R. , Henniker‐Heaton C.
Published: January 2008

February 27, 1973 Industrial relations — Unfair industrial practice — Employee's resignation from trade union — Threat of industrial action by union against employers — Whether employee “person against whom the action was taken” — Whether competent to bring complaint against union — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), ss.5(1)(2), 33(3), 101(1), 105(1).
HEATH AND ANOTHER v. J.F. LONGMAN (MEAT SALESMEN) LTD.
Authors: Griffiths Hugh , Arkell J.H. , Briggs H.
Published: January 2008

May 16, 1973 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Strike — Employees on strike — Subsequent dismissals on same day as ending of strike — Whether employees taking part in strike on “date” of dismissal — Meaning of “date” — Industrial Relations Act, 1971(c.72),s.26.
BUX v. SLOUGH METALS LTD
Authors: Davies Edmund , Stamp L.J. , Stephenson L.J.
Published: January 2008

July 6, 1973 Factories — Eyes — Protective equipment — Whether “suitable” goggles “provided” — Whether compliance with statutory duty excludes employers' common law duty of care — Duty of employers at common law — Non‐Ferrous Metals (Melting and Founding) Regulations, 1962 (S.I. 1962 No. 1667) reg. 13(1) (c),(4).
R.S. COMPONENTS LTD. v. IRWIN
Authors: Brightman John , Griffiths Reginald , Roberts H.
Published: January 2008

July 26, 1973 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Reasonableness of dismissal — Employee's refusal to enter into restrictive covenant — Whether refusal a reason justifying dismissal — Whether “some other… substantial reason of a kind such as to justify … dismissal” — Whether ejusdem generis rule applicable — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), s.24(l), (2).
VOKES LTD. v. BEAR
Authors: Griffiths Hugh , Lawder F.H. , Roberts H.
Published: January 2008

October 31, 1973 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Employee dismissed for redundancy — Employers one of group of companies — Employee dismissed without warning and without attempt to find him alternative employment within group — Whether employers acted reasonably in “circumstances” — Whether compensation correctly evaluated in relation to unfairness of dismissal — Industrial Relations Act 1971 (c. 72), s.24(6).
HARE v. MURPHY BROTHERS LTD.
Authors: Donaldson John , Arkell J.H. , Brooks A.G.
Published: January 2008

May 25, 1973 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — “Dismissed” — Employee sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment — On release told job filled — Complaint of unfair dismissal out of time — Whether prison sentence repudiation of contract of employment — Whether employee “dismissed” — Industrial Relations Act, 1971(c.72),s.23(l).
SPANLITE STRUCTURES LTD. v. JARRETT
Authors: Donaldson John , Boyfield R. , Brooks A.G.
Published: January 2008

July 2, 1973 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Continuous employment — “Associated Company” — Employment by two companies with common shareholding — Total employment two years — Whether continuity of employment — “Associated employer” — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72), s.167 (8) — Contracts of Employment Act, 1972 (c.53), Sch.l, para.10 — Redundancy Payments Act, 1965 (c.62), s.48 (4).
BROWN v. ALLIED IRONFOUNDERS LTD.
Authors: Reid  , of Borth‐y‐Gest Morris , Dilhorne Viscount , of Glaisdale Simon , Kilbrandon
Published: January 2008

March 27, 1974 Factory — Safety — Employee painting heavy object — Assistance available for turning it over — No instructions to seek assistance — Injury through handling without assistance — Employer's breach of statutory duty — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II c.34), s.72(1).
ATKINSON v. SIR ALFRED McALPINE & SON LTD.
Authors: Widgery C.J. , Waller J. , Phillips J.
Published: January 2008

April 8, 1974 Factory — Asbestos dust — Crocidolite — Demolition work including process of removal of lagging — No knowledge or reasonable grounds for supposing crocidolite involved in lagging — Obligation to give advance notice of beginning of process — Obligation to provide approved respiratory protective equipment and protective clothing — Whether absolute — Asbestos Regulations, 1969 (S.I. 1969 No. 690), regs. 6(2), 8(1) (a) (b).
IQBAL v. LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE
Authors: Megaw L.J. , Buckley L.J. , Orr L.J.
Published: January 2008

June 6,1973 Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Course of employment — Bus conductor driving bus — Bus blocking path of conductor's and plaintiff driver's bus — Conductor told by plaintiff to get engineer to move bus — Conductor attempting to move bus himself — Not knowing how to drive bus — Driver injured by conductor's negligent manoeuvre — Express prohibition in bus company's rules against conductors driving buses — Clear separation of duties of drivers and conductors — General duty of conductors to co‐operate with drivers in getting buses into service — Whether bus company vicariously liable for conductor's action — Whether within scope of employment.
HUGHES v. ARMITAGE BROTHERS
Authors: Cantley J.
Published: January 2008

May 7, 1974 Master and Servant — Breach of statutory duty — Workman working on platform of scaffolding erected by employer — Scaffolding not properly secured — Workman injured on falling off — Loss of one kidney — Assessment of damage — Approach to assessment of damage — Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 94),regs. 6(2), 15(1).
MARIS v. ROTHERHAM CORPORATION
Authors: Griffiths Hugh , Boyfield R. , Roberts H.
Published: January 2008

March 28, 1974 Industrial Relations — Unfair dismissal — Reasonableness of dismissal — Employee convicted of fraud — Reinstatement in previous job — Threats of industrial action by fellow employees — Dismissal — Tribunal's finding dismissal unfair — No award of compensation because dismissal contributed to by own misconduct — Whether convictions relevant consideration — Industrial Relations Act, 1971 (c.72),ss. 33(1), 116(1),(3).
HARTLEY v. SANDHOLME IRON CO. LTD.
Authors: Nield J.
Published: January 2008

Damages — Special damages — Plaintiff injuring finger in grinding machine — Plaintiff receiving income tax rebate as a result of loss of earnings — Whether income tax rebate to be deducted from loss of earnings — Liability and quantum of general damages — Abrasive Wheels Regulations 1970 (S.I. 1970 No. 535), reg. 15.
BRITISH LEYLAND (U.K.) LTD. v. PAY BOARD
Authors: Templeman J.
Published: January 2008

Master and Servant — Pay — Statutory restriction — Groups of workers combined so as to distribute resulting permissible increase under Counter‐inflation legislation during Stage 2 among lower paid groups — Whether re‐grouping permissible for purpose of increasing total amount available — Counter‐Inflation Act 1973 (c.9) s.2(1) — Counter‐Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order 1973 (S.I. 1973 No. 658) paras. 101,105,106, 109 and 153.
A Manager's Guide to the Companies Act 1980
Authors: Chadwick Leslie , Dobbins Richard
Published: January 2008

Following a seven year period in which there were two general elections, three Companies Bills and various amendments, together with much debate, the Companies Act 1980 finally received the Royal Assent on 1 May 1980. One of the principal reasons for this Act is that it forms the first stage towards the harmonisation of UK company law with that of other member countries of the European Economic Community. In addition to the implementation of the EEC Second Directive on Company Law (Parts I, II and III of the Act), the Act also contains some other quite significant and important changes in UK company law dealing with the conduct of directors (Part IV of the Act) and insider dealing (Part V of the Act). (See Box A).
THE INCORPORATION OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT INTO THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

In an article entitled “Collective Bargaining — a theoretical analysis” A. Flanders defined collective bargaining as an “…institution for the joint regulation of labour management and labour markets.” The collective agreement, the result of the collective bargain, is normally an uninforceable contract and is a very different legal notion from that of the contract of employment. The function of the collective agreement is to regulate relations between the collective parties, that is between the employer's association or an individual employer, and a union or unions. Such relations are known as relations of a collective nature. They could include procedure agreements between the collective parties in relation to no‐strikes or other industrial action before the disputes procedure has been exhausted; matters to do with the structure of negotiations between the parties; the constitution of the bodies set up for collective bargaining purposes; procedures on re‐ negotiation of the collective agreement; and so on. The collective agreement has however another function, the individual function, which regulates relations between employer and employee. Terms and conditions of employment are usually regulated by the collective agreement. Thus pay scales, hours of work, holidays, wages during illness, overtime work, any matters relating to training, re‐training, apprenticeship, are some from among the numerous subjects to be found in conditions of employment. Procedures which relate to the individual employee, such as grievance and disciplinary procedures, may equally feature as part of the terms and conditions of employment which emanate from the collective agreement. Indeed statute requires that the employer gives his employee particulars of this latter's major terms and conditions of employment.
The Status of Employee
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

A distinction has to be drawn between a contract of service or a contract of employment on the one hand and a contract for services on the other. In the former situation the person employed is an employee, (or a ‘servant’ as he is often referred to in case law), in the latter he is an indpendent contractor. The particular requirement of a contract of service is the right of the employer, (or ‘the master’) to have, inter alia, residual control, (which may in some instances be reduced to being a mere formality), over the employee, although as will be examined later, other factors are equally applicable.
The Contract of Employment
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

In this part it is proposed to discuss five aspects of the contract of employment and matters relating to it. The nature of the contract of employment will be considered first and the discussion will then go on to treat statutory intervention as a factor which regulates the underlying structure of the law of employment. In the second instance the characteristics of the contract of employment will be considered. There will then follow a brief excursus on how a contract of employment is formed. Here only offer, acceptance, consideration capacity, intention to enter into legal obligations and form will feature. Discussions on legality of object and restrictive covenants will be left until later. Following on from this third aspect, the fourth will consist of a detailed examination of the statutory written particulars of employment, i.e. (written statement); the discussion will then go on to examine in what circumstances complaints connected with the written statement may be made to an industrial tribunal. The reader will finally be invited to look at a sample written statement by way of practical exercise.
INCORPORATION IN RELATION TO STATE PROMOTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING –
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

Legislative encouragement to promote collective bargaining by the use of the indirect method of the sanction of incorporation through a CAC award.
The Sources of the Contract of Employment
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

In a previous monograph a discussion took place on the implied terms at common law which were connected with the employer's duties. It is now proposed to consider the obligations of the employee which are implied by the common law. A discussion and an analysis is proposed of each of the following common law implied duties, namely a duty of care by the employee in carrying out his work; a duty of fidelity where an evaluation of its various aspects will take place and a duty of obedience. The employee's inventions and discoveries will then be treated.
Statutory Conditions of Employment
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

Modern employment legislation invests the employee with important rights resulting in a greater degree of job security and improved legal protection in his employment. These rights or entitlements which are all personal in nature are divisible, for the sake of convenience, into four parts. Firstly, individual rights. These include guarantee payments, medical suspension, maternity, time off for specified activities, and the employer's insolvency. These rights are by no means exhaustive. Other rights of an individual nature as for example the right not to belong to a trade union where a closed shop is in operation; rights in connection with trade union membership; written reasons for dismissal; and so on, will be treated in the context of the discussion which will take place under the appropriate heading. Secondly, it is proposed to examine the employees right not to be discriminated against in employment on grounds of race and sex, thirdly, his right not to be unfairly dismissed will be analysed, to be followed finally by his right to redundancy payments. In this monograph, it is proposed to examine the first of these personal rights, namely the employee's individual rights. Each of the others will be discussed in subsequent monographs. It should be noted that unlike the common law terms implied into the contract of employment which consist of duties imposed on both the employer and the employee and which can be contracted out of by an express term in the contact of employment the statutory conditions of employment cannot be dispensed with in that manner. Like the implied terms at common law, the statutory conditions of employment too form another source of contract of employment though of course they are independent in that they neither form part of the contract of employment nor of the common law rights.
Legal Notions on the Collective Agreement
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

It will be recalled that the last monograph treated the significance of the collective agreement in society. If solely a function in society, (though having a legal basis), were to be attributed to the collective agreement, this would mean that no rights or obligations whatsoever would be created between the parties to it. This is not so in practice. It is of course a fact that no legally enforceable rights and obligations normally accrue, and as already indicated, those are moral ones and are only enforceable in honour, i.e. a gentleman's agreement. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the collective agreement has no juridical significance. Even agreements which are binding in honour only, as for example the kind of agreement found in Balfour v. Balfour, have a known juridical nature. Furthermore, though the collective agreement is only binding in honour, its incorporation into the individual contract of employment makes its terms legally enforceable even though recourse to the courts is seldom had. As a source of rights and obligations of considerable importance the collective agreement must therefore have some juridical significance and cannot remain entirely in the realms of society.
THE LAW OF WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

Phillips, J. has drawn the distinction between wrongful dismissal at common law and unfair dismissal under statute. He points out the considerable difference which exists between the position at common law and the position under statute. “The common law” he says “is concerned merely with the contractual relationship between the parties, whereas a complaint of unfair dismissal…is concerned with the statutory right of an employee not to be unfairly dismissed.” There thus exists a fundamental difference between the two concepts, both of which are in their different circumstances important. In this monograph, it is proposed to treat the common law of wrongful dismissal. Statutory unfair dismissal will be the subject of discussion in a future monograph.
‘A Spider's Web’: Title and Security Interests in Goods
Authors: Johnson Howard
Published: January 2008

The purpose of this monograph is to touch on some of the difficulties encountered in the passing of title to goods or the taking of a security interest in goods. The law is in a hopelessly complicated and technical mess which serves neither the interests of consumers or businessmen. It is particularly appropriate to look at this area at this time, as Professor Aubery Diamond, at the request of the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Michael Howard M.P.), is examining the need for alteration of the law relating to security over property other than land. To this end Professor Diamond has issued a Consultation Document in which he poses a number of questions for the legal and business community to consider, it is to be hoped that the Government will act on any proposals produced instead of consigning them to a limbo as was done with the Law Reform Committee's Twelfth Report on ‘Transfer of Title to Chattels’ and with the proposed ‘Lending and Security Act’ suggested by the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit in 1971.
Termination of Employment Other Than By Dismissal
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

The purpose of this monograph is to examine the various ways in which the contract of employment may be terminated at common law other than by the common law of wrongful dismissal or statutory unfair dismissal and redundancy. Wrongful dismissal has already been discussed in another monograph and unfair dismissal and redundancy will feature in a subsequent one.
Industrial Conflict
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

Civil wrongdoings with consequent financial and other loss or damage to employers, employees and third parties may result in the course of various trade union activities. These day to day trade union activities take a variety of forms. The most common ones are inducement of breach of contract, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and intimidation. Each of these activities constitutes a tort which, unless the statutory immunities apply, would normally give rise at common law to an action for damages or, as is more frequent, enable the aggrieved party to obtain an injunction.
REDUNDANCY
Authors: Carby‐Hall Jo
Published: January 2008

The original legislation which introduced the redundancy payments scheme was the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. This was the first of the substantive statutory individual employment rights given to an employee; other individual employment rights, as for example, the right not to be unfairly dismissed, followed some years later. The Redundancy Payments Act 1965 has been repealed and the provisions on redundancy are now to be found in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
Unfair Dismissal
Authors: Carby‐Hall Jo
Published: January 2008

Judging from the enormous amount of case law which has taken place on unfair dismissal claims since its initial introduction by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, this branch of the law of dismissal has proved more popular than the common law of wrongful dismissal which, though significantly less sought after, is still of importance in certain circumstances. The implications and functions of the law of wrongful dismissal have already been treated. Nothing further need be added; the reader is therefore referred to the appropriate monograph.
Health, Safety and Welfare at Work
Authors: Carby‐Hall J.R.
Published: January 2008

One of the common law duties owed by the employer is his duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his employee. This common law duty is an implied term in the contract of employment and is therefore contractual in nature. Because of the difficulties which may arise in bringing an action in contract for breach of the employer's duty of care, the employee who has sustained injuries during the course of his employment (although he may sue either in contract of tort will normally bring a tort action.