[1991] I.C.R. 269 - C.A. (2-1 majority decision, Leggatt L.J. dissenting).
An express term allowing the employer to require the employee to work 88 hours was qualified by a term implied on health grounds. This obviously raised the question of the interrelationship between express and implied terms.
Stuart-Smith L.J. observed that the duty was implied by law, not just a Moorcock implication. The case may therefore be an overriding duty case, but another possibility is that a specific express term can be qualified by an implied general term (see especially Browne-Wilkinson L.J.).
Leggatt LJ dissented on "conventional" grounds.
Legal page, home page, list of cases, top of case , labour law page
These notes were last updated on 04 Jan 98.
toddpn2@cf.ac.uk