JUDGMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27193, 10 November 1953, Page 6

JUDGMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL

EMPLOYEE’S CLAIM “ MISCONCEIVED ”

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ALLEGED

“I hold that Hills was not wrongfully dismissed and, even supposing the appeals were allowable, it would be impossible to hold upon Hills’s own evidence that there had been a denial of justice.”

With that comment Mr Rex C. Abernethy. S.M., gave judgment in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday for the Christchurch City Council in the case in which Edward Leslie Hills, a labourer, claimed £227 Is 8d for loss of earnings and £250 general damages. Hills founded his claim against the council on his wrongful dismissal effected by a resolution of the reserves committee on January 12, 1953. and on the failure of the committee properly to hear and determine in a judicial manner his appeal on May 16. The case was heard on September 29 and 30, when Mr I?. J. Drake appeared for Hills, and Mr W. R. Lascelles appeared for the City Council.-

In his reserved decision, given yesterday, the Magistrate said he had come to the very definite conclusion that the claim was completely misconceived and, moreover, at £477 was so grossly inflated that it bore no possible relationship to the single week’s wages which would more nearly represent the damages, suffered by way of wrongful dismissal (if proved) under a contract terminable by one week’s notice.

“Summary dismissal, that is, dismissal instant and without notice, for wilful misconduct, does not enter into this matter at all. I find that Hills’s engagement has been properly determined and that it could have been determined with or without cause indicated,” said the judgment. The Magistrate held that Hills was not suspended but lawfully dismissed upon proper notice and was granted an appeal to which he was not entitled. The appeal was left in the discretion of the reserves committee without the compulsion or necessity of deciding the truth or untruth of any allegation of unsatisfactory conduct. It had merely to decide whether Hills’s dismissal notice should stand.

“The plaintiff cannot now be heard to say that what he and his adviser, Mr Roberts, regarded a$ a highly satisfactory appeal with a decision in favour of himself ‘in the bag’ ‘ was a denial of justice because the reserves committee decided otherwise—particularly when he was not legally entitled »to any appeal,” said the judgment.