Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board
Encyclopedia
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294 is an English contract law
case, relevant for pensions and UK labour law, concerning implied terms
.
. They had not worked the requisite 40 years before retirement to get full superannuation (or pension) benefits. But by law they could "top up" their payments within twelve months of beginning their jobs and get the full entitlements. Their employer did not tell them this. So they failed to get better rates.
Reynold QC, counsel for the employees, argued a ‘necessary’ term of employment was information about exercising rights under the superannuation scheme.
Lord Bridge, distinguished terms implied ‘in fact’ to reflect the parties’ unexpressed common intentions and those implied ‘in law’. He went on as follows.
Lord Roskill, Lord Goff, Lord Jauncey and Lord Lowry concurred.
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case, relevant for pensions and UK labour law, concerning implied terms
Implied terms in English law
Implied terms in English law refers to the practice of setting down default rules for contracts, when terms that contracting parties expressly choose run out, or setting down mandatory rules which operate to override terms that the parties may have themselves chosen...
.
Facts
Dr Scally and three other doctors were employees of the Southern Health and Social Services Board in Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland
Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom. Situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland, it shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west...
. They had not worked the requisite 40 years before retirement to get full superannuation (or pension) benefits. But by law they could "top up" their payments within twelve months of beginning their jobs and get the full entitlements. Their employer did not tell them this. So they failed to get better rates.
Reynold QC, counsel for the employees, argued a ‘necessary’ term of employment was information about exercising rights under the superannuation scheme.
Judgment
The House of Lords held that the employers had breached a contractual duty, implied into the employment contracts, to properly inform their employees about their rights.Lord Bridge, distinguished terms implied ‘in fact’ to reflect the parties’ unexpressed common intentions and those implied ‘in law’. He went on as follows.
Lord Roskill, Lord Goff, Lord Jauncey and Lord Lowry concurred.
See also
- Equitable Life Assurance Society v HymanEquitable Life Assurance Society v HymanEquitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman [2000] is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms.-Facts:Equitable Life issued ‘with profits’ life assurance policies, which are a way of saving for retirement. If policy holders took benefits as a taxable annuity Equitable Life Assurance...
[2002] 1 AC 408 - Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings LtdCrossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings LtdCrossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms.-Facts:Mr Crossley was a director of Faithful & Gould Ltd. He suffered a nervous breakdown. Under the firm’s disability insurance scheme, so long as he was an employee he was entitled to...
[2004] EWCA Civ 293 - Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom LtdAttorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom LtdAttorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] is a case on which the Privy Council gave advice, relevant for contract law, company law and constitutional law...