Addis V Gramophone Co Ltd

''Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd'' AC 488
is an old English contract law">909
AC 488
is an old English contract law and UK labour law case, which used to restrict damages for non-pecuniary losses for breach of contract.

Facts

Mr Addis was Gramophone’s manager in Calcutta. In October 1905, he was given six months' notice of dismissal as legally required and a successor was appointed. However, Gramophone also immediately took steps during this six-month period to prevent Addis acting as manager, resulting in Addis leaving his job two months later and returning to England. This was humiliating. The jury awarded Addis £340 for loss of commissions and £600 for wrongful dismissal. Could there be damages for the manner of dismissal?

The Court of Appeal had allowed damages for the manner of the dismissal.

Submissions

;Duke KC and Groser, for the appellant.

;Lush KC (Schiller with him), for the respondents.

Judgment

Lord Loreburn held that £600 was not allowed, that he could only recover his six-month salary and no more. At 491 he said,

‘If there be a dismissal without notice the employer must pay an indemnity; but that indemnity cannot include compensation either for the injured feelings of the servant…’

Lord Collins dissented.
Lord Atkinson said the case was in fact about libel.

;Lord Loreburn LC

Lord James of Hereford.

Lord Atkinson.

Lord Collins.

Lord Gorell.

Lord Shaw of Dunfermline.

Significance

The case was met with immediate disapproval in a number of quarters. Sir Frederick Pollock, contrasted "an artificial rule or mere authority" to "the rationale of the matter":

In 1997, Lord Steyn explained the current jurisprudence relating to the ''ratio'' of ''Addis'' in his judgment in '' Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA'':

In 2001, '' Farley v Skinner'' further distinguished ''Addis'', in holding that "the plaintiff's claim is not for injured feelings caused by the breach of contract. Rather it is a claim for damages flowing from the surveyor's failure to investigate and report, thereby depriving the buyer of the chance of making an informed choice whether or not to buy resulting in mental distress and disappointment."

See also

;Contract law cases
*''Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd'' 9731 All ER 71
*'' Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd'' 9753 All ER 92
*'' Ruxley Electronics Ltd v Forsyth'' [1995
UKHL 8
*'' Farley v Skinner'' [2000] UKHL 49
*''Johnson v Gore Wood & Co'' 0022 AC 1, 49, (a case actually concerning "reflective loss" in UK company law) it was said contract breaking is an ‘incident of commercial life which players in the game are expected to meet with mental fortitude’

;Labour law cases
*''Malik and Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA'' UKHL 23
997
UKHL 23
[1998AC 20; [1997">998">997
UKHL 23
[1998AC 20; [19973 All ER 1, 997IRLR 462, 9973 WLR 95, 997ICR 606
*'' Johnson v Unisys Ltd'' 998EWCA Civ 1913, [2001
UKHL 13
*'' Eastwood v Magnox Electric plc'' 002EWCA Civ 463

Further reading

*

References

{{DEFAULTSORT:Addis V Gramophone Co Ltd
United Kingdom labour case law
English remedy case law
House of Lords cases
1909 in British law
1909 in case law
1909 in labor relations