Neha Patil (Editor)

Devonald v Rosser and Sons

Updated on
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Citation(s)  [1906] 2 KB 728
Devonald v Rosser & Sons httpsuploadwikimediaorgwikipediacommonsthu

Court  Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Similar  French v Barclays Bank plc, Sagar v Ridehalgh & Sons Ltd, Dryden v Greater Glasgow, Kaur v MG Rover Group Ltd, Malone v British Airways plc

Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 KB 728 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that an implied term of employment contracts is that when there is no work available to be done, the employer must bear the risk by continuing to pay wages.



In a test case, Mr Devonald was a tinplate rollerman at Rosser & Sons’ factory in Cilfrew, South Wales. He was paid for each completed box of 112 tin plates. His contract said he was required to do the tasks set by the employer and that he would get 28 days' notice before termination. Unfortunately, tinplates were in decline and the employer announced the plant would close in two weeks. There was a six-week period, therefore, when the employer gave no work. The question was whether the employer had to pay, given that payment was really according to piece.


Lord Alverston CJ (deciding a few months just after the 1906 general election) held that the contract was in fact a time service contract and that the employee did not bear the risk of plant closure.


Devonald v Rosser & Sons Wikipedia