Просмотр кода страницы Английская Википедия:Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd

{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd
| court = Court of Appeal
| image = 
| date decided = 
| full name = 
| citations = [2004] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/293.html EWCA Civ 293]
| judges = 
| prior actions =  
| subsequent actions = 
| opinions = 
| transcripts =
| keywords = Insurance, [[Implied terms in English law|implied terms]]
}}

'''''Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd''''' [2004] [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/293.html EWCA Civ 293] is an [[English contract law]] case, concerning [[Implied terms in English law|implied terms]] in employment contracts.

==Facts==
Crossley was a long-standing employee and director of Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd. He fell sick and was unable to work. As a member of the firm’s disability insurance scheme he was entitled to benefits while he remained employed by the company. He was advised by his doctor to seek early retirement on health grounds as he was not expected to recover from his illness. After discussions with his employer he tendered his resignation in terms suggested by the company. The resignation resulted in the loss of entitlement to benefits and the scheme insurer stopped payments after one year. Crossley sought a ruling that an implied term of his contract of employment was that the employer would take reasonable care for his economic well-being and that by not drawing his attention to the loss of benefits had failed in this duty of care.<ref name=EWCA>{{cite court |litigants=Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd |vol= |reporter=IRLR |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= [[EWCA]]|date=16 March 2004 |url= |quote= |postscript= }}</ref>
==Judgment==

The court rejected Crossley's claim. Firstly it held that his resignation had been at his own instigation and secondly that, as a senior employee and director, it was reasonable to expect him to have reviewed the terms of the scheme or taken advice before resigning.<ref name=EWCA/>  

==See also==
*''[[Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board]]'' [1992] 1 AC 294
*''[[Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman]]'' [2002] [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/39.html 1 AC 408]
*''[[Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd]]''

==Notes==
{{reflist}}



{{DEFAULTSORT:Crossley v Faithful and Gould Holdings Ltd}}
[[Category:English contract case law]]
[[Category:United Kingdom labour case law]]
[[Category:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases]]
[[Category:2004 in United Kingdom case law]]
{{Навигационная таблица/Портал/Английская Википедия}}
[[Категория:Английская Википедия]]
[[Категория:Википедия]]
[[Категория:Статья из Википедии]]
[[Категория:Статья из Английской Википедии]]