Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Authority & Anor v The Fire Brigades Union and Ors

Contractual duties are determined by construing the agreement in its factual and contractual context. A general power to deploy staff for a socially beneficial purpose does not, by itself, enlarge employees’ contractual duties. Nor does a general obligation to obey reasonable instructions authorise an employer to require work outside the contract.

Where the agreed role is defined by fire-fighting, rescue and attendance at emergencies for which the fire service is the primary agency, a duty to attend purely medical incidents in place of the ambulance service is a change in the nature of the work. Such a duty cannot be imposed by inference where the contractual documents contain no express provision for it.

Fire authorities sought declarations that firefighters’ contracts, incorporating the national Grey Book and Role Maps, required participation in co-responding schemes. Such schemes involved firefighters attending category A medical emergencies where they could arrive before an ambulance and providing initial medical treatment.

The dispute arose from proceedings in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The Queen’s Bench Division, before Butterfield J, rejected the authorities’ contractual case. The authorities appealed on the construction of the contractual documents, the effect of statutory powers and guidance, and general obligations to cooperate and obey instructions.

The central issue was whether co-responding fell within the existing contractual duties or required agreement to a change in terms.

1. Appeals dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed with Butterfield J that firefighters were not contractually obliged to participate in co-responding.
2. The Grey Book was to be construed by reference to the factual matrix of the agreement and to what it said about itself. The relevant background included the settlement terms, the long-standing opposition of the Fire Brigades Union to co-responding, and the ordinary understanding that firefighters are not expected to stand in for an ambulance service at a purely medical incident. If that duty were intended, it would need to be imposed expressly rather than by inference.
3. The court explained, without affecting the outcome, that where a literal reading flouted business common sense, the background might show that the parties had used the wrong words. No such drafting problem arose in this case.
4. The references to reducing loss arising from fires and other hazards, and to Role Maps including saving and preserving endangered life and treating casualties, did not extend the contract to co-responding. Those provisions addressed the firefighter’s role at incidents attended by the fire and rescue service, including rescue and treatment of casualties, rather than attendance at an ambulance-only medical emergency.
5. The authorities’ statutory powers under sections 11 and 12 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, section 21 of that Act and section 3 E of the 1947 Act, together with governmental encouragement, were unilateral statements of subjective intent. They could not determine the meaning of the contract where the parties had not agreed to the additional duty.
6. Cresswell v the Board of Inland Revenue was distinguishable. It concerned a change in the method of performing the same work. Co-responding changed the nature of the work because firefighters were deployed to perform the essentially different work of paramedics or ambulance crews.
7. General contractual provisions requiring cooperation or obedience to superior officers operated only within the existing contractual scope. They did not authorise instructions to undertake co-responding. Both appeals were dismissed, with the court endorsing the judge’s hope that the parties would reach a voluntary agreement.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2007] EWCA Civ 240: both appeals dismissed.
• Queen’s Bench Division — decision of Butterfield J: the authorities’ contractual case was rejected, substantially because co-responding fell outside the firefighters’ contractual duties.