Majority Decision Queried

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30092, 28 March 1963, Page 16

Majority Decision Queried

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 27. An action by John Bruce Brown, ValuerGeneral, to determine whether a majority decision of the Public Service Appeal Board was valid, was heard in the Supreme Court today. Mr Justice McGregor reserved his decision. Brown is seeking a declaration under the Declaratory Judgments Act that a decision of the board which dismissed his appeal on his application for the position of Director - General of Lands was invalid. The three members of the board. Harry R' 'en. Stephen Roberts and Clifford Jack Stace are named as first defendants in the proceedings Two former members of the

Public Service Commission. Leonard Allan Atkinson and Adrian George Rodda, are named as second defendants. Mr J. C. White, with him Mr M J, Powles appeared for Brown and Mr E. C. RWinkel for the defendants. Mr White said that Mr R J. Maclachlan. formerly Valuer-General and later a Public Service commissioner, had been appointed DirectorGeneral of Lands a position for which Brown also applied Brown had formerly been assistant Direc-tor-General of Lands. In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Appeal Act, Brown appealed against the appointment. but the appeal had been dismissed by a majority decison, the chairman (Mr Rosen) dissenting. Referring to the listing of appeals over the years, Mr White said that since the provision was enacted, there had been 12,700 appeals. A total of 57 dissents had been recorded. 44 of which were before 1920. But there had

been no record of any dissenting opinions being recorded until 1956. since when five had been recorded. The board was a tribunal exercising a judicial function and with a magistrate as chairman No appeal from a decision of the board was possible, and it had recently been laid down that the board had to act judicially. There was a gerxral rule that where three persons were empowered to act in a matter concerned with an individual right, kt was presumed that their decision had to be unanimous in the absence of express statutory provision to the contrary Mr Winkel said th. act was "silent both ways” There was nothing in it requiring decisions of toe board to be unanimous. It would be surprising, he said, if the Legislature intended that the three boards concerned with appeals by State servants differed so much that only the Railways Tribunal could arrive at majority decisions.