Johnson v Unisys Ltd
An employee cannot recover damages at common law for the manner of his dismissal, because Parliament has provided a statutory remedy for unfair dismissal, creating the Johnson exclusion zone.
Facts
Mr Johnson was summarily dismissed by Unisys after an unfair disciplinary process. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal and received the maximum compensation then available. He then brought a claim at common law for damages for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, claiming that the manner of his dismissal had caused him a mental breakdown, which made it impossible for him to work, and that he had lost earnings of about 400,000 pounds.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that his claim must be struck out. Lord Hoffmann said that the implied term of trust and confidence was concerned with the preservation of the continuing relationship, and could not sensibly be extended to the way in which the relationship was terminated. Parliament had provided a statutory remedy for unfair dismissal, with limits on compensation, and it would be wrong for the common law to create a parallel remedy without those limits. The area in which an employee cannot recover damages at common law is known as the Johnson exclusion zone.
Related cases on the contract of employment and implied terms
- Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, [2015] 1 WLR 1661
- Cresswell v Board of Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508
- Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc [2004] UKHL 35, [2005] 1 AC 503
- Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58, [2012] 2 AC 22
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117
- Geys v Société Générale [2012] UKSC 63, [2013] 1 AC 523
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41
- Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
