Frustration of contract

Case 11: The facts

Mr Mulford was employed by Easiwipes Ltd. His employment transferred to Manpower, but he continued to work at the Easiwipes premises until they told Manpower that they no longer wanted him to work there because of his level of absenteeism.

Manpower removed him from that placement and offered him alternative work, but there was a two-week gap before he started new work, during which he was not paid. He refused to undertake any further work for Manpower, and claimed constructive dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages. His argument was that there had been a TUPE transfer and that Manpower were obliged to pay him, whether or not he was actually working.

The ruling

The EAT held that the contract had been frustrated when Easiwipes had stated they did not want him to work on their premises, because this had made it impossible for him to perform the contract. Mulford was not entitled to pursue his claims, because his employment had ended before the acts that he complained of.

Manpower v Mulford UKEAT/0148/03