What is the ratio in Malik v BCCI?

There is an implied term in employment contracts that employers will not, without reasonable cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated to destroy mutual trust and confidence, including conducting business dishonestly in ways that damage employee reputation.

What did the court decide in Malik v BCCI?

The House of Lords held that employees could claim 'stigma damages' for reputational harm to future employment prospects caused by their employer's dishonest business conduct.

Why is Malik v BCCI important for employment law?

It established the concept of stigma damages and significantly expanded employer obligations under the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence, protecting employee reputation and career prospects.

What is the ratio in Malik v BCCI?

There is an implied term in employment contracts that employers will not, without reasonable cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated to destroy mutual trust and confidence, including conducting business dishonestly in ways that damage employee reputation.

What did the court decide in Malik v BCCI?

The House of Lords held that employees could claim 'stigma damages' for reputational harm to future employment prospects caused by their employer's dishonest business conduct.

Why is Malik v BCCI important for employment law?

It established the concept of stigma damages and significantly expanded employer obligations under the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence, protecting employee reputation and career prospects.

Employment1 min read

Malik v BKCI

[1998] AC 20House of Lords1998

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Employment cases →

“House of Lords establishes employer duty of mutual trust and confidence”

Facts

The claimants were former employees of BCCI who were made redundant when the bank collapsed amid widespread fraud and corruption scandals. They argued that the bank's dishonest conduct had stigmatized them and made them less employable in the financial services sector, seeking damages for loss of future earnings and reputation.

Issues

Whether there exists an implied term of mutual trust and confidence in employment contracts, and if so, whether employees can recover damages for its breach including losses flowing after termination of employment.

Held

The House of Lords held that there is an implied term that employers will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct themselves in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee. Damages could be recovered for breach of this term.

Significance

This case firmly established the implied term of trust and confidence as a cornerstone of UK employment law, providing protection for employees against employer misconduct and enabling claims for consequential losses including reputational damage.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Malik v BKCI. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20 (HL)

Employment LawContract Law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBSQE1

More Employment cases

Pepkolaj v Barrett Steel Ltd (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 14

Lamb v Teva UK Ltd (Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKEAT 8

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

[2026] EAT 7

Anea v OCS UK & I Ltd & Ors (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 21

MacAusland Design Limited v A Portosi

[2026] EAT 51

Chand v EE Ltd (Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal; composite reason; fairness)

[2026] UKEAT 17

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.