| O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation | [1983] ICR 728 |
| Keywords | |
| Employment contract, mutuality of obligation, casual worker, union discrimination | |
O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] ICR 728 was a UK labour law case, in which a bare majority held that a requirement for a contract is "mutuality of obligation" between the parties, which was thought to mean an ongoing duty to offer and accept work. It has been consistently doubted,[1] and its outcome reversed by legislation,[2] and its reasoning superseded by Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher,[3] which states that the only "mutual" obligations that are required is the consideration of work for a quid pro quo.[4]
- ^ e.g. Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung [1990] UKPC 9
- ^ e.g. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s 146
- ^ [2011] UKSC 41
- ^ E McGaughey, A Casebook on Labour Law (Hart 2019) ch 3, 113