Evans v Williams [1910] HCA 76

H.C. oF A. 1910.

Haywoop.

Isaacs J.

H. C. or A 1910. Ss

Sypvey,

Nov, 22, 23; Dec. 12, 16.

Griffith O.J., Barton and Isaacs JJ.

HIGH COURT (1911.

do not see that justice would be assisted by driving the parties to further protracted litigation, leading possibly to further appeals. The appellant stands simply non-suited; if he chooses to try his fortunes further he may do so, but without the aid of this Court. This judgment will not prevent him doing so if he wishes. But so far from encouraging him to adopt that course, I entirely agree that, there being no question of general importance involved, the proper order in the circumstances is to rescind the leave to appeal and leave the parties to occupy the position in which they were placed by the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Special leave to appeal rescinded.

Solicitors, for the appellant, Crisp & Crisp, for D. C. Urquhart, Devonport.

Solicitors, for the respondent, Hwing, Hodgman & Seagar, for Wilfred Hodgman, Burnie.

BL. (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] JAMES WILLIAM EVANS. = - . APPELLANT; PLAINTIFF, AND JAMES LESLIE WILLIAMS. f i . RESPONDENT.

DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Contract—Construction — Implied term — Agreement by Crown with holder of statutory office—Agreement to give up statutory fees in consideration of payment of fiwed salary by Crown—Power of Crown to terminate contract.

11 C.L.R.) OF AUSTRALIA.

In 1883 the plaintiff was appointed Inspector of Weights and Measures H. C. oF A.

under the Weights and Measures Act 16 Vict., No. 34. As such Inspector he was not an officer of the Public Service, and could only be removed from his office by the bench of magistrates. Under the Statute the plaintiff was entitled to certain fees of his office, and was also paid a salary by the Govern- ment for services rendered in another capacity. Prior to 1893 the Depart- ment of Justice had de facto exercised control over the plaintiff in his official capacity, and in that year the Minister of Justice prescribed certain rules to be followed by the plaintiff, and fixed his remuneration at £300 a year in addition to his fees. In answer to an inquiry by the Department of Justice the justices stated that they had no objection to the plaintiff being retained in his position as inspector upon the terms so prescribed. In 1896 the plaintiff was classified by the Public Service Board, under the Public Service Act 1895, as an officer in the clerical division, and his salary was fixed at £400 without fees, The Public Service Board further stated that unless the plaintiff renounced his ciaim to retain the fees, and agreed to their being waived and retained by the Government, the Board would consider the pro- priety of making other arrangements. 'The plaintiff agreed to this proposal, and in March 1897 the Department of Justice wrote to the plaintiff stating that in view of his having renounced his claim to fees, the Public Service Board had approved of his salary being fixed at £425 per annum, with £110 per annum allowance. Salary was paid to the plaintiff on this basis until 30th April 1908. In 1906, in pursuance of the recommendation of a Royal Commission, the administration of the plaintifi's office as inspector was trans- ferred to the Police Department. The Chief Secretary, on the recommenda- tion of the Public Service Board, decided that the plaintiff's services should be dispensed with. The plaintiff declined to retire, and stated that he was not an officer under the Public Service Act. On 30th April 1908 an order was made by a magistcate, sitting as a Court of Petty Sessions, that the plaintiff should be removed from his office of inspector under the Weights and Measures Act. This order was set aside by the High Court, but the plaintiff was de facto excluded from his office of inspector and prevented from earning his