Government Transport, Commissioner for v Chapman [1957] HCA 41

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Government Transport, Commissioner for v Chapman [1957] HCA 41

ORDER Appeal allowed. Order of the Supreme Court set aside and in lieu thereof order that judgment in the action be entered for the appellant and that the respondent pay the costs of the appellant in the action in the District Court and of the appeal to the Supreme Court. Further order that the appellant pay to the respondent his costs of the appeal to this Court.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

July 2 Dixon C.J., McTiernan, Fullagar and Taylor JJ.

The respondent, as the plaintiff in a district court action, sued the appellant to recover the sum of £568 as and for the monetary value of a period of long service leave which, it was alleged, accrued due to him as an officer in the service of the appellant and which was not granted to or availed of by him prior to retirement.

It appears from the facts of the case that the respondent entered the service of the appellant in the month of May 1913 and that he was retired from such service on 13th November 1953 after more than forty years service. There is no question that prior to his retirement he had become entitled to, and had not had the benefit of, two months' long service leave, twenty-eight days' annual leave and twenty-one days' leave in lieu of public holidays upon which he had worked, and that, upon his retirement, he was paid the aggregate monetary value of such leave, namely, the sum of £271 8s. 1d. The claim of the respondent in the action was, however, that, in view of subsequent events, he became entitled to another four months' long service leave and that the amount so paid to him was, therefore, inadequate. Accordingly his action was brought to recover the monetary equivalent of an additional four months' leave. In the action judgment was entered for the appellant but on appeal to the Supreme Court by the respondent the latter was successful. This appeal is now brought by special leave from the order of the Supreme Court which directed that judgment should be entered for the respondent for the amount claimed.