have spent a substantial proportion of her working life as an employee rather than as a self-employed barrister or tenured office holder.’

have spent a substantial proportion of her working life as an employee rather than as a self-employed barrister or tenured office holder.’

[121] ‘…The House of Lords was persuaded that the common law implied term, developed for a different purpose, should not be extended to cover the territory which Parliament had occupied. In fact, the territory which Parliament had occupied was the lack of a remedy for loss of a job to which the employee had no contractual right beyond the contractual notice period. Parliament occupied that territory by requiring employers to act fairly when they dismissed their employees. But there was and is nothing in the legislation to take away the existing contractual rights of employees. There was and is nothing to suggest that Parliament intended to limit the entitlement of those few employees who did and do have a contractual right to the job, the right not to be dismissed without cause. It is for that reason that I am afraid that I cannot agree that the key distinction is between the consequences of dismissal and the consequences of other breaches. The key distinction must be between cases which must rely on the implied term to complain about the dismissal and cases which can rely on an express term.’

(ii) Fringe benefits:

Shove v Downs Surgical plc [1984] ICR 532 (QB)

(iii) Discretionary bonuses:

Lavarack v Woods of Colchester [1967] 1 QB 278 (CA); Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald
[2005] ICR 402 (CA)
(b) Specific performance and injunctions

i) Slavery/forced labour

De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 45 Ch. D. 430, 438 (Per Fry, LJ):

‘I should be very unwilling to extend decisions the effect of which is to compel persons who are not desirous of maintaining personal relations with one another to continue those personal relations… I think the courts are bound to be jealous lest they should turn contracts of service into contracts of slavery.’

iii) Requirement for court supervision

Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Assn [1893] 1 Ch 116 (CA) iii) Damages usually adequate remedy

Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Assn [1893] 1 Ch 116 (CA) (above) iv) Lack of mutual trust and confidence