Frustration of contract

Case 4: The facts

After a check-up revealed possible heart problems, light-goods vehicle driver Martin Waller was temporarily suspended from driving pending further health tests. When he submitted a medical certificate stating that it was possible that he would need a pacemaker, his employer terminated his employment on the grounds that the contract had been "frustrated", since he would require a further six months off work after having a pacemaker fitted.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there was clearly no frustration of contract; there was no unforeseen event making it impossible for the contract to be performed. Fitting a pacemaker was only one possibility (in fact Waller did not need one, and was able to return to driving) and, even it had been required, the recovery time was six weeks and not six months. Waller had been unfairly dismissed.

Hatton Logistics Ltd v Waller UKEAT/0298/06