Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGolding, G.en
dc.identifier.citationAustralian Journal of Labour Law, 2015; 28(2):113-131en
dc.description.abstractAustralian courts are faced with competing narrow and wide approaches to the necessity test that is applied when they are asked to imply a new contractual term by law. This complexity stems from the obscure development of the necessity test in England. The recent Australian High Court decision concerning the existence of an implied term of mutual trust and confidence, in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker, appears paradoxically to support both the narrow and wide approaches to the necessity test. This article argues that unless the application of the necessity test is clarified, the courts will likely avoid implying terms by law in employment contracts altogether. This outcome is problematic because gaps in those contracts will remain and need to be filled.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityGabrielle Goldingen
dc.rightsCopyright status unknownen
dc.subjectEmployment law; labour law; contract law; implied terms; employment contract; common law; necessityen
dc.titleTerms implied by law into employment contracts: are they necessary?en
dc.typeJournal articleen
pubs.library.collectionLaw publicationsen
dc.identifier.orcidGolding, G. [0000-0001-6522-9920]en
Appears in Collections:Law publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
RA_hdl_109447.pdfRestricted Access160.09 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.