Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 307 views

    Edwards V Skyways LTD

    Uploaded by

    Wan Farzana

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Edwards V Skyways LTD

    Uploaded by

    Wan Farzana
    307 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Edwards v Skyways Ltd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    307 views2 pages

    Edwards V Skyways LTD

    Uploaded by

    Wan Farzana

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Date and Time: Sunday, 2 May, 2021 5:49:00 PM MYT

    Job Number: 142843663

    Document (1)

    1. Edwards v Skyways Ltd


    Client/Matter: -None-
    Search Terms: Edwards v Skyways
    Search Type: Natural Language
    Narrowed by:
    Content Type Narrowed by
    Cases -None-

    | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis
    Edwards v Skyways Ltd

    Overview | [1964] 1 All ER 494, | [1964] 1 WLR 349, 108 Sol Jo 279

    Edwards v Skyways Ltd


    [1964] 1 All ER 494, [1964] 1 WLR 349, 108 Sol Jo 279

    Court: Queen's Bench Division

    Judgment Date: 21/01/1964

    Catchwords & Digest

    CONTRACT - DEFINITIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS - DEFINITIONS - DEFINITIONS — VAGUENESS —


    UNCERTAINTY
    Plaintiff was employed by defendant company as an aircraft pilot, and as such he was a member of
    defendant company's contributory pension fund and entitled under its rules on leaving defendant company's
    services in advance of retirement age to a choice between two options, either to withdraw the sum of his own
    contributions to the fund or to take the right to a paid-up pension at retirement age. In January 1962, defendant
    company wrote to plaintiff, among others, informing him that it was necessary to declare a redundancy of
    approximately fifteen per cent of defendant company's pilot strength and giving him three months' notice terminating
    his employment. At a meeting on 8 February 1962, between authorised representatives of defendant company and
    BALPA, plaintiff's trade association, it was agreed (as recorded in the notes of the meeting) that ‘pilots declared
    redundant and leaving [defendant company] would be given an ex gratia payment equivalent to defendant
    company's contributions to the pension fund’. The representative of defendant company actually said at the meeting
    that defendant company would make ex gratia payments ‘approximating to’ defendant company's contributions.
    Having been informed of the recorded agreement, and having found other employment and left defendant
    company's employment at the end of March 1962, plaintiff elected on 1 May 1962, to withdraw his contributions to
    the pension fund and to receive the ex gratia payment that defendant company proposed to make. Defendant
    company paid to plaintiff the amount of his contributions, but did not make the ex gratia payment, and rescinded the
    decision to make ex gratia payments, having regard to defendant company's financial difficulties and creditors.
    Plaintiff brought this action to recover a sum equal to the total contributions made by defendant company in respect
    of him to the pension fund. Defendant company contended that the recorded agreement was not intended to create
    legal relations and was too vague, and thus was not legally binding. It was admitted at the hearing that there was
    consideration moving from plaintiff and that at the time of the meeting of 8 February 1962, defendant company
    intended to carry out the recorded agreement: Held where, as here, there was agreement and the subject of
    agreement related to business affairs, the onus of establishing that the agreement was not intended to create legal
    relations, which was on the party setting up that defence, was a heavy onus; and defendant company had failed to
    discharge it for the following reasons: (1) the words ‘ex gratia’ were used simply to indicate that the party agreeing
    did not admit any pre-existing liability on defendant company's part, and the mere use of the phrase ‘ex gratia’ as
    part of a promise to pay (even if prompted by the purpose of avoiding the incidence of income tax) did not show that
    the promise, when accepted, should have no binding effect in law; (2) the use of the words ‘approximating to’ on
    behalf of defendant company did not render the terms of the agreement too vague to be enforceable, for at most
    the phrase would connote on the evidence a rounding off of a few pounds downwards to a round figure.

    You might also like