AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Deighton's Sharp cut OK

8th September 1988
Page 23
Page 23, 8th September 1988 — Deighton's Sharp cut OK
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• G S Deighton Haulage Coniractors had been entitled to conclude that the contract of employment of its sole mechanic had come to an end when he had been remanded in custody for an indefinite period by the police, said a Leeds Industrial Tribunal last week when it rejected an unfair dismissal claim by Philip Sharp.

The tribunal was told that the firm had employed six people and that on 19 January 1988, company boss Joseph Deighton had been informed by Sharp's wife that he had been arrested and she did not know for how long. That had remained the position for a couple of months.

Deighton was himself a mechanic and had been able to maintain, repair and service the vehicles for a short period, but in view of Sharp's indefinite absence, he had felt obliged to make arrangements with a commercial garage. The firm had written to Sharp in March, saying that his contract of employment had come to an end. The letter had arrived three days after Sharp's release.

The tribunal said that it was dear that the imprisonment of Sharp was a potentially frustrating event. In the circumstances, and in the light of the statutory requirements in relation to vehicle maintenance, it had been clearly commercially necessary for the firm to make other arrangements.

It concluded that Sharp had not been dismissed, but that his contract had been frustrated by his imprisonment and that that frustration had brought the contract to an end.


comments powered by Disqus