This case concerned the interpretation of an express contractual clause. The complainant was a food delivery driver and resigned from his position due to the respondent selling the company vehicle.

The respondent claimed that the complainant was contractually obliged to provide his own personal vehicle to fulfil the deliveries when the company vehicle was not available. However, the wording of the clause relied on was ambiguous and imprecise, and appeared to apply only in exceptional circumstances.

The Court applied the contra proferentum rule in favour of the complainant. The court found that the complainant did not act unreasonably in terminating his employment as the respondent had unilaterally decided to sell the company vehicle without ensuring that the complainant could