An agency can be created through express appointment or implicitly.

Express
appointment is when a principal explicitly appoints an agent for specific tasks, creating a
contractual relationship. Implied agency arises when a third party assumes a pre-
existing agent-principal relationship extends to other matters, often based on the
agent's position. Agents may have implied or apparent authority, which can protect
third-party expectations. Agencies can also be formed through ratification, where a
principal agrees to be bound by an unauthorized agent's actions.
Ratification of Contracts Made by an Agent
 Ratification is the act of a principal adopting a contract made on their behalf by an agent who had no
authority or acted outside their authority
 Ratification puts the principal, agent and third party in the position they would have been in if the
agent's acts had been authorized from the start
 Strict conditions must be met for ratification to be effective
Conditions for Effective Ratification
 The agent must have disclosed that they were acting for a principal
 The principal must have been in existence when the agent entered into the contract
 The principal must have had the capacity to enter into the contract not only when the contract was made
but also at the time of ratification
 The principal must ratify the whole contract
 Ratification must take place within a reasonable time
Agency of Necessity
 Arises when a person takes urgent action on behalf of another in the event of an emergency
 The person acting as an agent of necessity must show that they acted in the best interests of the
principal, their actions were reasonably necessary in the circumstances, and it was impossible to contact
the principal to obtain instructions
Examples of Agency of Necessity
 The authority of the shipmaster to act in emergencies as an agent of the shipowner to preserve the ship
and her cargo
 The acceptor of a bill of exchange for the honor of the drawer who has an entitlement to be reimbursed
by the person for whom he pays
Cases on Ratification and Agency of Necessity
 Bolton Partners v Lambert (1889) - ratification is referred to the date of the original contract and the
contract becomes as binding on the principal as if they had been originally a party
 Sachs v Miklos (1948) - no agency of necessity arises if there is no emergency compelling the agent to
act
 Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale and Cerealfin SA v Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co, The
Choko Star (1990) - the law may imply a term conferring on the shipowners and master authority to
enter into salvage contracts on behalf of cargo owners when the vessel is in danger
Circumstances leading to an agency of necessity
 It is necessary to take salvage assistance
 It is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the cargo owners or to obtain their instructions
 The master or shipowners act in good faith in the interests of the cargo
 It is reasonable for the master or shipowner to enter into the particular contract
Estoppel
 A principal represents that a person is acting as his agent, and will be prevented from denying that the
person had authority to act as his agent

 A representation that the agent had authority to enter into the contract was made to the contractor
 The representation was made by a person or persons who had actual authority to manage the business of
the company
 The contractor was induced by the representation to enter into the contract
  Under its memorandum or articles of association, the company was not deprived of the capacity to enter
into the contract or delegate authority to the agent
Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993
 Implement the European Directive relating to Self Employed Commercial Agents into UK law
 Harmonize European legislation governing contracts between agents and their principals, and
strengthen the position of agents
 Define commercial agents as self-employed intermediaries who have continuing authority to negotiate
the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of a principal
 Lay down the minimum requirements of a contract between an agent and principal, such as minimum
periods of notice, when commission is due, and the right to claim compensation on the termination of
the contract
Racing UK Ltd v Doncaster Racecourse Ltd (2004)
 The company sought to enforce a purported agreement with the racecourse management company and
the racecourse owner concerning television picture rights
 The racecourse owner argued that the chief executive of the management company did not have
authority to enter into the agreement on its behalf
 It was held that while there was no actual or implied authority for the management company to enter
into the agreement, the owner presented by conduct that the agreement was binding upon it
Authority to Enter into Contracts on Behalf of a Company
 A chief executive may have the authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the owner
 If an agent, such as a chief executive, has apparent authority to contract on behalf of a company, the
company is estopped from denying that authority to anyone who has entered into a contract with the
agent in reliance on that authority
 For example, if a chief executive has been given the authority to sign contracts on behalf of a company,
and a vendor relies on that authority when entering into a contract with the company, the company
cannot later deny that the chief executive had the authority to sign the contract
Representation and Estoppel
 A company may be estopped from denying a representation it has made to another party
 For example, if a company represents to a vendor that it will purchase a certain quantity of goods, the
company may be estopped from denying that representation if the vendor relies on it to their detriment
Validity of Notices
 A notice served on a landlord with a view to exercising the tenant's right to break a commercial lease
must be valid in order to be effective
 For example, if a notice is given in the name of only one of the two companies that form the tenant, it
may not be a valid notice and the landlord may not be estopped from denying its validity
Case Law
 In the case of Freeman & Lockyer, the court held that the company was estopped from denying that the
agent had authority to contract on behalf of the company
 In the case of Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Exel UK Ltd (2009), the court held that the notice served
on the landlord was not a valid notice and the landlord was not estopped from denying its validity
It is important to note that the concept of estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from denying or
asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth,
either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or
implied.
 It is a rule of evidence and not a substantive right, and it is based on the principle of fairness and justice.
 It is a shield and not a sword, it can only be used as a defense and not as a cause of action.
It is also important to note that the concept of estoppel is not absolute and it is subject to various exceptions and
limitations. It is always advisable to consult with a legal professional when dealing with issues related to
estoppel.
The defence of consent in tort law is a complete defence where the claimant
knowingly and willingly took on the risk of injury. This consent can be express or implied
from the claimant's conduct. However, consent is not available in 'rescue cases' where
the claimant is injured while trying to rescue someone or something from a dangerous
situation caused by the defendant's negligence. Contributory negligence, on the other
hand, is a partial defence that reduces the claimant's damages according to their share
of fault, as per the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. In Morris v Murray
(1990), the claimant's action against the deceased pilot's estate was barred by volenti
(consent) due to their prolonged drinking session and flight in a light aircraft piloted by
the defendant.
Defences to an action in tort
 There are several defences available to a defendant facing an action in tort: consent, contributory
negligence, statutory or common law justification, necessity, and illegality
 Consent, or assumption of risk, is a complete defence to an action in tort. It can arise from an express
agreement to run the risk of injury or can be implied from the claimant's conduct
 Examples of express agreement include where a patient signs a consent form before an operation.
Implied consent is often referred to as volenti non fit injuria (no harm is done to one who is willing)
 The defence of consent is not normally available in what are known as 'rescue cases'. These are
situations where a claimant is injured while attempting to rescue someone or something from a
dangerous situation caused by the defendant's negligence
 Before 1945, contributory negligence was a complete defence to liability in tort. However, the Law
Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 modified this harsh rule by providing for apportionment of
blame between the claimant and defendant
 Section 1(1) of the Act provides that where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own
fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be
defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in
respect thereof shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable
Consent in more detail
 Consent may arise either from an express agreement to run the risk of injury or may be implied from the
claimant's conduct
 An example of express agreement is where a patient signs a consent form before an operation
 Implied consent is often referred to as volenti non fit injuria (no harm is done to one who is willing)
 Participants in a boxing match, for example, are deemed to have consented to the intentional infliction
of harm which would otherwise amount to a trespass
 The defence of consent was of greater importance in the 19th century when it was used by employers to
defeat claims by their employees for injuries suffered during the course of employment caused by the
employer’s negligence
 However, the significance of the defence in employment cases diminished greatly as a result of the
decision of the House of Lords in Smith v Baker & Sons (1891)
 Consent cannot be inferred from knowledge of the risk: it must also be shown that the claimant freely
and voluntarily accepted the risk
 These days the courts are more likely to make a finding of contributory negligence which has the effect
of apportioning fault between the parties, rather than consent which is a complete defence
Types of Defences in Tort Law
 Statutory or Common Law Justification: A person may have a good defence to an action in tort if
they can show that their acts are covered by statutory authority. For example, the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 sets out police powers of arrest, entry, and search. If these powers are exercised
lawfully, the Act will provide a good defence to an action in tort.
 Self-defence: Self-defence is a defence to the tort of trespass to the person, provided that the force used
is reasonable. For example, if a person uses reasonable force to defend themselves or another person
from harm, they may have a valid defence to a claim of battery.
 Chastisement of a child by a parent: This is a defence to the tort of trespass to the person, provided
that the force used is reasonable. For example, if a parent lightly spanks their child for misbehaving,
they may have a valid defence to a claim of battery.
 Necessity: If a person commits a tort but only in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring, they
may be able to raise the defence of necessity. The defendant must be able to show that there is an
imminent threat of danger to person or property and that their actions were a reasonable response to the
 circumstances. For example, if a person breaks into a building to escape a fire, they may have a valid
defence of necessity to a claim of trespass.
 Consent: If a person has given their consent to the act or omission that would otherwise be a tort, then
there is no liability. For example, if a person gives consent to a medical procedure, then the doctor who
performs the procedure will not be liable for battery.
 Illegality: A person will not be able to maintain a cause of action if they have to rely on conduct which
is illegal or contrary to public policy. For example, in the case of Thackwell v Barclays Bank (1986),
Thackwell's claim was barred by illegality as it was contrary to public policy to allow him to enjoy the
proceeds of his fraud.
Note:
 These defences are not exhaustive and there may be other defences available in specific cases.
 The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the defence applies.
The defence of consent in tort law is a complete defence where the claimant
knowingly and willingly took on the risk of injury. This consent can be express
or implied from the claimant's conduct. However, consent is not available in
'rescue cases' where the claimant is injured while trying to rescue someone or
something from a dangerous situation caused by the defendant's negligence.
Contributory negligence, on the other hand, is a partial defence that reduces
the claimant's damages according to their share of fault, as per the Law
Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. In Morris v Murray (1990), the
claimant's action against the deceased pilot's estate was barred by volenti
(consent) due to their prolonged drinking session and flight in a light aircraft
piloted by the defendant.
Defences to an action in tort
 There are several defences available to a defendant facing an action in tort: consent, contributory
negligence, statutory or common law justification, necessity, and illegality
 Consent, or assumption of risk, is a complete defence to an action in tort. It can arise from an express
agreement to run the risk of injury or can be implied from the claimant's conduct
 Examples of express agreement include where a patient signs a consent form before an operation. Implied
consent is often referred to as volenti non fit injuria (no harm is done to one who is willing)
 The defence of consent is not normally available in what are known as 'rescue cases'. These are situations
where a claimant is injured while attempting to rescue someone or something from a dangerous situation
caused by the defendant's negligence
 Before 1945, contributory negligence was a complete defence to liability in tort. However, the Law Reform
(Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 modified this harsh rule by providing for apportionment of blame
between the claimant and defendant
 Section 1(1) of the Act provides that where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault
and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated
by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof
shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable
Consent in more detail
 Consent may arise either from an express agreement to run the risk of injury or may be implied from the
claimant's conduct
 An example of express agreement is where a patient signs a consent form before an operation
 Implied consent is often referred to as volenti non fit injuria (no harm is done to one who is willing)
 Participants in a boxing match, for example, are deemed to have consented to the intentional infliction of
harm which would otherwise amount to a trespass
 The defence of consent was of greater importance in the 19th century when it was used by employers to
defeat claims by their employees for injuries suffered during the course of employment caused by the
employer’s negligence
 However, the significance of the defence in employment cases diminished greatly as a result of the decision
of the House of Lords in Smith v Baker & Sons (1891)
 Consent cannot be inferred from knowledge of the risk: it must also be shown that the claimant freely and
voluntarily accepted the risk
 These days the courts are more likely to make a finding of contributory negligence which has the effect of
apportioning fault between the parties, rather than consent which is a complete defence
Types of Defences in Tort Law
 Statutory or common law justification: A person may have a good defence to an action in tort if they can
show that their acts are covered by statutory authority. For example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 sets out police powers of arrest, entry, and search. If these powers are exercised lawfully, the Act will
provide a good defence to an action in tort.
 Common law justification: There may also be justification at common law for tortious acts. Self-defence
and chastisement of a child by a parent are both defences to the tort of trespass to the person, provided that
the force used is reasonable.
 Necessity: If a person commits a tort but only in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring, they may
be able to raise the defence of necessity. The defendant must be able to show that there is an imminent
threat of danger to person or property and that their actions were a reasonable response to the
circumstances.
 Illegality: It is a general principle of law that a person will not be able to maintain a cause of action if they
have to rely on conduct which is illegal or contrary to public policy. This principle is expressed in the Latin
phrase of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. For example, in the case of Thackwell v Barclays Bank (1986),
Thackwell brought an action against the bank for conversion of a cheque to which he claimed to be entitled.
The cheque represented the proceeds of fraud against a finance company in which Thackwell had been a
party. The court held that Thackwell’s claim was barred by illegality. It was contrary to public policy to
allow him to enjoy the proceeds of his fraud.
Mr Badger’s case
 Contributory negligence: Mr Badger’s failure to give up smoking, despite the government placing health
warnings on cigarette packets from the early 1970s, amounted to contributory negligence. The reduction in
damages should be calculated from the time when he should have stopped smoking.
Compensation Act 2006
 Joint and several liability: The Compensation Act 2006 provides for joint and several liability in cases
where a claimant has contracted mesothelioma as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos. Claimants will
be able to sue any of the responsible persons and receive full compensation from that person, who will be
able to claim contributions from others who were also responsible for causing the mesothelioma.

===============================================================================
The passage provides information about the historical context of employment relationships, particularly
focusing on the evolution of tests used to determine whether someone is an employee. Here are
summarized details of each paragraph:
1. Introduction to Control Test:
 Discusses historical context, stating that not all current tests for employment were available in
earlier times.
 Highlights the emergence of income tax deduction in 1842 and the development of social
security legislation post-World War II.
 Emphasizes the need for tests to distinguish between employees and self-employed individuals.
2. Need for the Control Test:
 Explains the historical lack of clear distinctions between employed and self-employed
individuals.
 Discusses the importance of determining employee status due to the employer's liability for
damages caused by employees, known as vicarious liability.
 Introduces the earliest test for determining employment status, called 'the control test.'
3. Control Test in Practice:
 Describes a case example (Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths) where the
control test was applied to determine vicarious liability.
 Highlights the significance of the employee's answers in court regarding taking orders.
4. Joint Vicarious Liability:
 Introduces the concept of joint liability between employing parties in cases like Viasystems Ltd
v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd (2005).
 Describes a situation where two companies were held jointly liable for the negligence of an
individual employed by one of them.
5. Shareholders and Directors:
 Discusses the unique employment status of majority shareholders and directors.
 Mentions cases (Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill (1999) and Connolly v
Sellers Arenascene Ltd (2000)) where majority shareholders and directors are considered
employees.
  Introduces recent case law (Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v
Neufeld, 2009) offering a better chance for controlling shareholders and directors to be
recognized as employees.
6. Conclusion on Shareholders and Directors:
 Summarizes recent case law allowing greater flexibility in recognizing controlling shareholders
and directors as employees.
 Highlights factors affecting the determination, such as whether the contract is genuine or a
sham.
This passage provides insights into the historical and legal aspects of determining employment status, with a
focus on the control test and its application in specific cases.
===============================================================================
The 'control test' was used to determine if a person was an employee by
assessing who had control over their work. This test is less necessary today
due to more evidence of employment relationships, but it can still be useful in
deciding if a temporary employer is vicariously liable for an employee's
actions. In the Mersey Docks case, the general employer, the Board, was
found vicariously liable for an employee's negligence because he did not take
orders from the temporary employer. In the Viasystems case, the Court of
Appeal considered joint liability between employing parties, removing any
principled objection to it.

The Control Test

 In the past, the control test was used to determine if a person (A) was an employee of another (B)
 The control test is less commonly used today due to the availability of more evidence to determine the
relationship between A and B
 However, the control test is still necessary in certain situations, such as when determining if B, who is
employed by A, has been temporarily transferred to another person (C), making C liable for injuries
caused by B
Example: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd (1946)
 The Board owned and hired out mobile cranes driven by skilled operators who were employees of the
Board
 Coggins & Griffiths hired one of the Board’s cranes and an operator, Mr Newell, to unload a ship
 In the course of unloading the ship, a person was injured due to Mr Newell’s negligence
 The court had to decide if the Board or Coggins & Griffiths were vicariously liable for Mr Newell’s
negligence
 Since Mr Newell stated that he did not take orders from Coggins & Griffiths, it was determined that the
Board was vicariously liable for Mr Newell’s negligence
Joint Vicarious Liability
 In cases such as Mersey Docks, joint liability between employing parties had not been considered
 However, the Court of Appeal considered the possibility of joint liability in the case of Viasystems Ltd
v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd (2005)
 In this case, a fitter’s mate (C) working for company B, who was subcontracted by company A, caused
a flood at a factory
 Company B contended that company A was liable because they had control of C who was working
within the environment of company A
Court of Appeal's Decision on Joint Vicarious Liability
 The Court of Appeal ruled that company A and company B were liable for the negligence of C, each
bearing 50 percent of the damage
 This introduced the concept of joint vicarious liability, which was hitherto unknown in the country
Employment Status of Majority Shareholders and Directors
 Majority shareholders and directors can be regarded as employees of the company if there is a written
contract of employment and all the usual hallmarks of employment are present
 This gives employed controlling shareholders and directors a better chance of being compensated for
their losses
Shareholder and Director as Employee: Guidance for Determining Employment Status
 It is a question of fact requiring consideration of whether the putative contract of employment is a
genuine or sham contract
  In cases involving an alleged sham, the court's task is to decide whether a purported formal written
employment contract or memorandum purporting to record or evidence the creation of such a contract
amounts to a sham
Erosion of the Blanket Ban on Employment Status for Controlling Shareholders and Directors
 The almost blanket ban introduced by earlier cases such as Buchan v Secretary of State for Employment
(1997) has been considerably eroded
 This generally arises where the company has gone into an insolvency procedure and cannot pay wages
and salaries
Controlling Shareholders and Directors as Employees: The Organizational Test
 Controlling shareholders and directors would seem to satisfy the organization test set out in the decision
and come in as employees under that

===============================================================================
Reasons justifying dismissal can be categorized into several key points:
1. Lack of Capability or Qualifications:
 Unsuitability arising from an employee's inability to perform the job due to a lack of skill,
qualifications, or mental and physical health.
 Examples include cases where incompetence is discovered early in employment.
2. Misconduct:
 Incompetence, neglect, disobedience, and various forms of misconduct, such as assaulting fellow
employees, immorality, habitual drunkenness, and inappropriate dress affecting the performance of
the employment contract.
 Illustration: Boychuk v H J Symons (Holdings) Ltd, where an employee's insistence on wearing
badges related to her sexual orientation led to a fair dismissal.
3. Redundancy:
 Genuine redundancy is a valid defense for dismissal.
 Safeguards are in place to prevent unfair selection for redundancy, considering factors like
pregnancy, trade union membership, statutory rights, and health and safety matters.
4. Dismissals Related to Trade Unions (Section 152 Reasons):
 Automatic unfair dismissal if the principal reason is trade union-related, such as being a member,
participating in union activities, or refusing to join or remain a member.
 Closed-shop dismissals are automatically unfair.
5. Statutory Restrictions:
 Dismissals justified when statutory restrictions, such as those imposed by an Act of Parliament or
ministerial order, impact the employer or employee.
 Example: Dismissing a lorry driver banned from driving for 12 months.
6. Some Other Substantial Reason:
 Dismissal may be fair and reasonable for various grounds not specified by legislation.
 Crime, suspicion of crime, and other substantial reasons fall under this category.
 Example: Dismissing an employee charged with theft, pending trial, rather than conducting
investigations that might interfere with the course of justice.
These reasons provide a framework for employers to justify dismissals, but each case should be evaluated
based on its unique circumstances, and employers must adhere to employment laws and regulations to ensure
fairness and legality in the dismissal process.
===============================================================================
Here is a summarized version of the information with scenarios for reasons justifying dismissal:
1. Lack of Capability or Qualifications: Unsuitability
 Scenario: An employee exhibits a lack of required skills or qualifications, hindering job performance.
 Illustration: In Alidair v Taylor (1977), a pilot's inadequate flying knowledge led to a faulty landing,
justifying instant dismissal due to potential serious consequences.
2. Misconduct
 Scenario: Employees engage in behavior detrimental to the workplace, such as incompetence, neglect,
disobedience, assault, immorality, or habitual drunkenness.
 Illustration: Boychuk v H J Symons (Holdings) Ltd (1977) involved an employee dismissed for
wearing offensive badges at work, highlighting the employer's right to maintain a suitable work
environment.
 Comment: Reasonable employers can decide what might be offensive to customers and employees,
taking steps to prevent potential damage to the business.
  Other Examples: Dismissal for fighting at work (Kowalski v The Berkeley Hotel, 1985) or planning
business competition (Marshall v Industrial Systems and Control Ltd, 1992).
3. Redundancy
 Scenario: Job roles become redundant due to changes in the organization.
 Defense: Employers cannot be expected to continue employment when genuine redundancy occurs.
4. Dismissals Related to Trade Unions (Section 152 Reasons)
 Scenario: Unfair dismissal related to trade union activities or membership.
 Examples: Automatic unfair dismissal if an employee becomes a trade union member or participates in
union activities (Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992).
5. Statutory Restrictions
 Scenario: Dismissal due to statutory restrictions imposed by laws or regulations.
 Example: Closure of a business due to safety concerns under an Act of Parliament justifies employee
dismissal.
6. Some Other Substantial Reason
 Scenario: Dismissal based on various grounds not specified by legislation.
 Examples: Dismissal due to crime or suspicion of crime, breakdown of relationships in the workplace,
or business reorganization.
 Note: Employers must act reasonably, provide information to the employee, and allow them to give
explanations and make representations against dismissal.
 Legal Ruling: Cobley v Forward Technology Industries plc (2003) - CEO's removal after a hostile
takeover, classified as 'some other substantial reason,' making the dismissal fair.

========================================================================
Certainly! Here's a rewritten version with a scenario for each reason justifying dismissal:
1. Lack of Capability or Qualifications: Unsuitability
Dismissal on the grounds of lack of capability or qualifications often arises early in employment when it
becomes evident that an employee cannot perform the job due to insufficient skills or health issues. Typically,
claims for unfair dismissal are less likely in this scenario, as incompetence is usually identified and addressed
before the completion of the one-year service required for a claim. However, examples exist, such as the case
of Alidair v Taylor (1977), where a pilot's lack of flying knowledge led to a faulty landing and subsequent
dismissal, deemed fair by the tribunal due to the severe consequences of skill failure.
2. Misconduct
Misconduct is a challenging matter, encompassing incompetence, neglect, disobedience, and various
inappropriate behaviors. For instance, in Boychuk v H J Symons (Holdings) Ltd (1977), an accounts clerk,
Miss B, insisted on wearing badges proclaiming her lesbian identity, leading to her dismissal. The tribunal
deemed the dismissal fair, emphasizing the employer's discretion to restrict symbols causing offense. This case
clarified that the dismissal was based on work conduct, not personal life.
3. Redundancy
Genuine redundancy is a valid defense for dismissal. When a position becomes redundant, an employer cannot
be expected to maintain employment. However, safeguards exist to prevent unfair selection, considering factors
like pregnancy, trade union membership, or health and safety matters.
4. Dismissals which are Union-Related
Union-related dismissals, outlined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, may be
automatically unfair. If an employee is dismissed due to trade union activities or membership, it is considered
unfair, requiring no specific period of service.
5. Statutory Restriction Placed on Employer or Employee
Dismissal may be justified if there is a statutory restriction affecting the employer or employee. For example, if
an employer's business is closed down by an Act of Parliament or ministerial order, resulting in job losses, it
would not be considered unfair dismissal.
6. Some Other Substantial Reason
Dismissal for some other substantial reason not specified by legislation can be justified. This includes crime,
suspicion of crime, or other grounds like a breakdown of relationships. For instance, in Cobley v Forward
Technology Industries plc (2003), a CEO's removal post-hostile takeover was deemed fair due to "some other
substantial reason," illustrating the flexibility of this category.
These scenarios emphasize the diverse circumstances under which dismissals may be considered fair and
reasonable.