Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Wages and salary are ordinarily remuneration for work. An employee claiming contractual remuneration must show that the employee worked, or was ready and willing to perform the required work, subject to terms governing illness or other unavoidable impediments.

An employer may refuse an offer of partial performance. If the employee then voluntarily withholds services for an identifiable period, the employer may withhold the corresponding apportioned remuneration without dismissing the employee or establishing a set-off for damages. The same principle applies to a statutory office-holder whose salary, properly construed, rewards services performed rather than mere tenure of office.

The respondent was a superintendent registrar appointed and paid by the appellant council under the Registration Service Act 1953 and a local registration scheme. His salary covered a 37-hour week. During industrial action he refused to conduct Saturday marriage ceremonies, although he was willing to perform other duties. The council rejected that partial performance and deducted three thirty-sevenths of his salary.

Nicholls J dismissed the respondent's claim for the deductions. The Court of Appeal, by a majority of Parker and Fox LJJ, reversed that decision: [1985] 1 W.L.R. 822. Eveleigh LJ dissented. The council appealed to the House of Lords. The central issues were whether the statutory salary rewarded work or mere tenure of office, whether employment-law principles applied by analogy, and whether remuneration could be withheld without dismissal or a damages set-off.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The House reversed the Court of Appeal and restored Nicholls J's order dismissing the action.

2. Per Lord Templeman and Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, whose reasoning on this issue was accepted by the other Law Lords, the salary was remuneration for services rather than an honorarium attached to mere tenure. The Registration Service Act 1953 and the local scheme made the amount payable dependent on a 37-hour working week. The council appointed and paid the registrar, provided his premises and regulated his hours and working conditions. The Registrar General's exclusive power of removal did not confer a right to salary despite a failure to perform the duties of office.

3. Per Lord Oliver, in reasoning expressly accepted by Lord Bridge of Harwich, a claimant seeking remuneration under a contract of employment bears the initial burden of showing that the claimant worked or was ready and willing to render the required services. The promises to work and to pay are mutually dependent. Lord Templeman and Lord Brightman stated the same principle. Voluntary refusal to work therefore prevents recovery of the remuneration attributable to the unperformed work. Formal dismissal, rescission and proof of a damages set-off are unnecessary.

4. The council had made clear that attendance on Saturdays would not be accepted unless the respondent was prepared to conduct marriages. Per Lord Bridge, an employer may reject an employee's offer of partial performance. Per Lord Oliver, the respondent's position was consequently equivalent to voluntary absence on Saturdays. He could not substitute other duties or weekday hours for the particular Saturday duty. The apportioned deduction of three thirty-sevenths was therefore lawful.

5. The House did not establish a general rule for deficient work which an employer continues to accept. Lord Templeman provisionally considered that an employee deliberately providing reduced work would lose the contractual wage but might recover the reasonable value of accepted services. Lord Brightman favoured the same approach. Lord Brandon of Oakbrook and Lord Oliver reserved the question, while Lord Bridge expressed doubt about the contractual basis for a quantum meruit.

1. House of Lords: In Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] AC 539, the council's appeal was allowed unanimously. The Court of Appeal's order was reversed and Nicholls J's order restored.
2. Court of Appeal: By a majority of Parker and Fox LJJ, with Eveleigh LJ dissenting, the court held that the respondent was entitled to his full salary unless dismissed: [1985] 1 W.L.R. 822.
3. High Court, Chancery Division: Nicholls J dismissed the respondent's action on 9 November 1983.