Prospect Estates Ltd v Todman

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Davis, C.J.,,St. Bernard, J.A.,,Peterkin, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 June 1976
• Neutral Citation: VG 1976 CA 5
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal (Civil) No. 1 of 1975
• Date: 14 June 1976

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J., St. Bernard, J.A., Peterkin, J.A

Magisterial Appeal (Civil) No. 1 of 1975

Prospect Estates Ltd.

and

Todman

Appearances:

M.D. Riegels for the appellant.

J.S. Archibald, with him W.L. Stevens, for the respondent

Industrial law - Contract of service — Termination — Reasonable notice.

Facts: Respondent employed by appellant as a plant operator. Respondent paid at hourly rate, not paid if he was unable to work because of rain or for day on which he was sick. Employment continued for ten months until respondent was paid workmen's compensation in respect of the injury. Appellant subsequently terminated respondent's employment by letter, giving one week's notice. Magistrate gave judgment for respondent including a sum for three week's wages on ground that a month's notice was reasonable for the termination of the respondent's employment.

Held: Where there is no agreement in a contract as to notice, the question of reasonableness of notice is an issue for the court. Court must look at nature of the employment, duration and all other surrounding circumstances. Notice reasonable. Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 This is an appeal from the decision of the district magistrate in which she gave judgment for the respondent in the sum of $347.58 and $100 costs.

2 The respondent's claim was in the sum of $378 being four weeks' wages in lieu of notice less the sum of $113.41 paid by the appellant as one week's wages, in lieu of notice, and the further sum of $220.50 being holiday pay earned and unpaid in respect of ten months' service. The total claim was therefore for $ 485.09.

3 The respondent was employed by the appellant in June 1974, as a plant operator at the rate of $2.10 per hour and he continued in this employment until 4 ^th April, 1975, when he was injured in the course of his employment. He was paid workmen's compensation in respect of this injury up to the 13 ^th May, 1975. By letter dated 18 ^th April, 1975, the appellant terminated his contract of employment with effect from Friday 25 ^th April, 1975. It is this termination of employment which gave rise to the claim.

4 The respondent stated in his evidence as follows:–

“I spoke to John Griffiths when I was to be re-employed. He told me Mr. Howard was to be my boss and he will tell me whet to do and that I must continue the same way. He said while standing at the edge of the swimming pool that I would get $2.10 per hour and that at the end of the week I will get my salary. Some days I might be sick and can't get out to work. I did not get paid for these days.”

5 I should also mention that during the course of the argument of this appeal both counsel agreed that the respondent was entitled to be paid only for the hours actually worked by him so that if it rained on a particular day or part...