IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v54y2025i4p847-871..html

Implied Terms in the Contract of Employment

Author

Listed:
  • A C L Davies

Abstract

In this article, I offer a critical analysis of the current state of the law on implied terms in the contract of employment, drawing inspiration from Sir Patrick Elias’s decided cases and academic writing on the topic. Implied terms provide an important opportunity to develop the protective function of the contract of employment to redress the inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee or, in the more modern terminology, the risk of unjustified domination of the employee by the employer. Implied terms can be deployed in both contractual claims (subject to the limitations put in place by Johnson and Edwards) and in unfair dismissal claims, where they are often central to determining whether a ‘constructive’ dismissal has taken place. Perhaps because of the variety of different circumstances in which implied terms might be used, the law has become somewhat muddled, and there have been some sharp disagreements among commentators as to how particular cases or lines of reasoning should be interpreted. I examine three lines of case-law in which employers’ decisions or actions are judged according to different tests: mutual trust and confidence, reasonableness and ‘proper purposes’. I explore how these three strands of case-law fit together, and conclude with some pointers for future development inspired by Sir Patrick’s contributions to the field.

Suggested Citation

  • A C L Davies, 2025. "Implied Terms in the Contract of Employment," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 54(4), pages 847-871.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:4:p:847-871.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwaf042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:4:p:847-871.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.