Roulstone v Cayman Airways Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Schofield, J.)
• Judgment Date: 13 January 1993
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 13 January 1993

Grand Court

(Schofield, J.)

ROULSTONE and COFFEE

and

CAYMAN AIRWAYS LIMITED

D. Murray for the plaintiffs;

S. Barrie for the defendant.

Case cited:

(1) Gunton v. Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council, [1981] Ch. 448; [1980] 3 All E.R. 577, dicta of Buckley, L.J. applied.

Legislation construed:

Labour Law (Law 30 of 1987), s.48:

‘Where upon a complaint of unfair dismissal, the Director has determined that the dismissal was unfair he may order the payment by the employer to the person dismissed of a sum of money by way of compensation for unfair dismissal.’

s.69:

‘(1) There shall be established an Appeals Tribunal . . . for the purpose of hearing appeals against decisions of the Director. . . .’

s.71:

‘(1) An appeal may be made to the Grand Court from a decision of the Appeals Tribunal upon a point of law only.’

Employment-termination-on notice-unfair dismissal-no cause of action at common law but redress available under Labour Law

Employment-termination-on notice-payment in lieu of notice-lawful for employer to terminate employee”s services by giving salary in lieu of notice in appropriate case

Employment-termination-on notice-wrongful dismissal-damages-aggrieved party entitled to wages from date of dismissal to earliest date on which proper to terminate contract

The plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant for damages for unfair dismissal, or alternatively, damages for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant company terminated the plaintiffs” employment as flight attendants and tendered to each his due allowances and one month”s salary in lieu of notice. Their employment agreements provided for their dismissal without cause ‘only after giving fourteen . . . days” notice in writing.’

The plaintiffs brought proceedings against the defendant for damages, claiming 11 months” salary for unfair dismissal or such other award as the court considered appropriate for wrongful dismissal.

Held, giving judgment for the defendant:

Unfair dismissal was not recognized by the common law but an employee who was so dismissed could seek redress under the Labour Law, s.48, which provided for making a complaint to the Director of Labour, followed by an appeal to an Appeals Tribunal, and a final appeal to the court from the Tribunal”s decision. Accordingly, no cause of action in the first instance lay with the court. In a case of wrongful dismissal the aggrieved party would be entitled to damages equivalent to the wages he would have earned from the date of dismissal to the end of his employment contract, that being the earliest date at which the employer would have been able properly to terminate the contract. However, this was not a case of wrongful...