A breach of an employment contract can occur where the parties to a contract fail to perform, precisely and exactly their obligation under the contract. A breach of contract by either party entitles the other party to either accept the breach or sue for damages, or to reject it and sue for specific performance. There are different types of breach of contract that can occur, according to M.R. Freedland. one type is the anticipatory Breach which was particularly developed in relation to the contract of employment to give immediate remedy to the employer for an anticipatory repudiation by the employee and occurs when a party to a contract repudiates his/her obligations under that contract before fully performing those obligations. The recognition of this type of breach occurred in Hochster v De la tour (1853)2 E&B 678 where it was held that the plaintiff, who was engaged by the defendant for three months service as a courier and notified before the engagement begun that that he would not be required, had an immediate action for damages for anticipatory wrongful dismissal, without the necessity to wait for the date on which the service should have begun. M.R. Freedland(1976)
The possible remedies one can obtain in Litigation may include the following:
Damages - According to M.R Freedland (1976) the remedy for damages for wrongful dismissal or breach of contract of employment is the most important remedy given by the common law, or by the rule of equity for the protection of the job security of the employee. It also follows that the measure of damages obtainable for wrongful dismissal or breach of contract is of great consequence, because it is the measure of the protection of security of employment at Common Law. In accordance with the general principle in contract, that of restitution in integrum which state the basis for the award of damages is to put the injured party in the position which he would have been if the contract had been fulfilled. John Sprack (2007) Botham v Ministry of Defence (2010) EWHC 646 (QB). The claimant in Botham similarly claimed that the disciplinary process which had ended in his dismissal had not complied with procedure contained within his contract, and issued a claim against his employer for wrongful and unfair dismissal. The Tribunal awarded damages for wrongful dismissal based on the statutory regime set out by the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “ERA”), being a sum in lieu of the three month notice period that the claimant would have been entitled to had his employment been terminated in accordance with the terms of his contract. The claimant was awarded a further discretionary sum in respect of the finding of unfair dismissal.
An employee may also claim damages suffered as a result of the breach of contract by the employer, irrespective of whether he elects to terminate the contract or to continue with the contract. Damages should be based on the type of damage involved and the compensation sought and whether the plaintiff suffered any loss or not. The employee would be entitled to the wages which he would have earned during the notice period, where the period of notice is included in the contract, if the contract is for a fixed term, without a “break” clause, then the wages in question are those to the end of the fixed term. One controversial area has been whether the employee is entitled to damages for the loss of a discretionary benefit which he expected to receive under the contract as was in the case of Clark v BET plc (1997) I.R.L.R. 348 where the issue concerned the quantum of damages to be awarded in an action for wrongful dismissal. Here, by his contract, a company chief executive had a right to have his salary reviewed annually and "increased by such amount if any as the board shall in its absolute discretion decide." The contract further stated that in reaching its decision the board had to consider the remuneration policy of other companies. The director claimed that he was entitled inter alia to damages including the salary increases of 10.5% he would have received during his notice period. He won the case and in addition to awarding him with the salary increase was also given an award in respect of a discretion bonus scheme under the contract. An employee may also claim damages suffered as a result of the breach of contract by the employer, irrespective of whether he elects to terminate the contract or to continue with the contract. In Wallace v Du Toit [2006] 8 BLLR 757 (LC) the employer employed the employee as an au pair to care for his two young children. After two years, the employee fell pregnant, and her employment was terminated. She sought compensation under the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”) for her automatically unfair dismissal and she further claimed damages under the Employment Equity Act. The Court awarded an amount of R25 000 damages for the impairment of her dignity and self-esteem flowing from the discrimination on the grounds of her pregnancy. Compensation equal to 12 months’ remuneration was added to this.
Injunction is another remedy a litigant can obtain in breach of contract of employment the origin of the power to grant injunction is from equity, this remedy commands an act that the court regards as essential to justice, or it prohibits an act that is deemed to be contrary to good conscience. The Court may grant an injunction in cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”. According to John Sprack (2007) this remedy has to be sought in the courts and cannot be obtained from a tribunal. Injunctions are more commonly sought and granted to maintain confidentiality or uphold a non-competing clause. An employee has a right to seek an injunction preventing the employer from dismissing him unless and until he complies with a mandatory contractual procedure relating to redundancy or discipline in the context of threatened dismissal, interim relief may be necessary to prevent dismissal.
In recent years there have been cases where the courts have accepted that an injunction may properly be granted against an employer to prevent a dismissal in breach of contract as was the case of Hill v Parsons (1972) Ch. 305, CA where the employer was pressured against his will to dismiss the employee, by a union attempting to impose a closed shop, and purported to dismiss the employee on one months' notice, whereas he was held to be entitled to six months under his contract of employment, in this case an injunction was granted to prevent the employer from dismissing the employee with inadequate notice. Gwyneth Pit (2009)
Where dismissal has already occurred it may be necessary to prevent the dismissal being acted upon like in Jones v Gwent CC (1992) IRLR 521 a letter from the defendant Council purporting to dismiss the plaintiff lecturer after she had been cleared of misconduct by two disciplinary hearings was not valid because it did not comply with the plaintiff's contract of employment.
Under the plaintiff's conditions of service, if consideration was to be given to dismissal, 10 days' notice in writing had to be given, informing her that the question of dismissal was to be considered and specifying in full any charge. The letter received by the plaintiff asking her to attend a disciplinary hearing was not a sufficient notice for the purposes of the plaintiff's conditions of service the court granted a declaration that a purported dismissal which breached the conditions for termination in an employee’s contract was not a valid and effective dismissal. The court also granted an interim injunction against the employer.
The other remedy available in Breach of contract of employment is Specific performance this is an order of a court which requires a party to perform a specific act. Specific performance will be awarded when damages are not an adequate remedy, as in cases where the subject matter of the contract is unique or where damages cannot be measured with reasonable certainty. Specific performance is governed by a set of strict principles and rules to avoid arbitrary enforcement. It is a discretionary remedy that claimants are not entitled to as of right and is dependent on the individual facets of each case. The main aim of a contract is to fulfill the expectations created by their creation, or otherwise known as the performance interest of the claimant. According to Gwyneth Pit the general principle is that specific performance should not be ordered . Gwyneth further explains that it is due to this principle why the law has never reacted to strikes by ordering people to go back to work. It would also be unfair for an employer to continue employing someone they do not wish to employ. Specific performance is a common law position supported by or reinforced by the Trade Union and Labours Relations Act s 236 which forbids orders of specific performance to compel anyone to work. Gwyneth Pit (2009)
The other remedy that a litigant can obtain in breach of contract is restitution. Restitution in its simplest sense, is making good, or setting something right. Restitution is the act of restoring to the rightful owner something that which was taken from him or her.
Restitution involves the principle of fairness, and it implies that no one should be unjustly awarded in any situation. Restitution is used in contract of employment in situations where one party cannot collect from the other or where a contract has been breached.

BIBILIOGRAPHY
Gwyneth Pitt – Employment Law (2009) 7th Edition- Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited – Sweet and Maxwell - London
Gwyneth Pitt – Employment Law (2011) 8th Edition- Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited –Sweet and Maxwell - London
John Sprack - Employment Law and Practice (2007)1st Edition – Sweet and Maxwell –
London
M.R Freedland – The Contract of Employment (1976) – Oxford University Press - London