- Published on
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd (1939)
This case concerns the implication of terms in a contract. The core issue is whether a term can be implied into a contract even if it wasn't explicitly stated.
I. Facts:
Can an implied term exist in a contract preventing the employer from altering its articles to remove an employee from their position, thereby breaching the initial contract?
III. Holding:
The Court of Appeal (CA) held that such an implied term did exist. This decision was upheld by the House of Lords (HL).
IV. Reasoning (MacKinnon LJ):
MacKinnon LJ critiques the over-reliance on general statements from previous cases (like The Moorcock) when implying terms. He proposes a more practical "officious bystander" test:
V. The "Officious Bystander" Test:
This test determines if a term should be implied. If, during contract negotiations, an officious bystander suggested including the term explicitly, both parties would likely respond with an irritated "Oh, of course!" This indicates the term is so obvious it's unnecessary to state explicitly. MacKinnon LJ suggests that if a judge only implies terms passing this test, they cannot be held wrong.
VI. Application to the Case:
Applying this test, the court found that it was obvious that the initial contract implicitly included a term that the defendant wouldn't remove the plaintiff as a managing director without a legitimate cause (e.g., gross misconduct), as this would fundamentally change the employment agreement. The unilateral amendment of articles to remove the plaintiff directly violated this implied term.
VII. Key Concepts:
This case concerns the implication of terms in a contract. The core issue is whether a term can be implied into a contract even if it wasn't explicitly stated.
I. Facts:
- Plaintiff: Managing director employed for 10 years (starting 1933).
- Defendant: Southern Foundries Ltd.
- Event: Southern Foundries was acquired by Federated. Federated's articles allowed removal of directors. Federated removed the plaintiff as a director, ending his role as managing director.
- Plaintiff's Claim: Breach of an implied term in his contract: Southern Foundries wouldn't amend its articles to allow his removal.
Can an implied term exist in a contract preventing the employer from altering its articles to remove an employee from their position, thereby breaching the initial contract?
III. Holding:
The Court of Appeal (CA) held that such an implied term did exist. This decision was upheld by the House of Lords (HL).
IV. Reasoning (MacKinnon LJ):
MacKinnon LJ critiques the over-reliance on general statements from previous cases (like The Moorcock) when implying terms. He proposes a more practical "officious bystander" test:
V. The "Officious Bystander" Test:
This test determines if a term should be implied. If, during contract negotiations, an officious bystander suggested including the term explicitly, both parties would likely respond with an irritated "Oh, of course!" This indicates the term is so obvious it's unnecessary to state explicitly. MacKinnon LJ suggests that if a judge only implies terms passing this test, they cannot be held wrong.
VI. Application to the Case:
Applying this test, the court found that it was obvious that the initial contract implicitly included a term that the defendant wouldn't remove the plaintiff as a managing director without a legitimate cause (e.g., gross misconduct), as this would fundamentally change the employment agreement. The unilateral amendment of articles to remove the plaintiff directly violated this implied term.
VII. Key Concepts:
- Implied Terms: Terms not explicitly stated but implied by law or the facts of the case. They are necessary to give the contract business efficacy.
- Officious Bystander Test: A practical test to determine if a term should be implied. It focuses on the obviousness and necessity of the term.
- Business Efficacy: The contract should make practical and commercial sense; implying terms achieves this.
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of relying on the "officious bystander" test for implying terms?
- How does the Shirlaw case help to define the boundaries of implying terms in a contract?
- Can you think of other scenarios where the "officious bystander" test might be applied to imply a term? What are the potential limitations?
- What is the significance of the case being affirmed by the House of Lords?
- Contrast the "officious bystander" test with other approaches to implying terms (if any are discussed in your materials).
0 Comments