Casey v The King - [1913] HCA 9

16 CLR 92

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Public Service of Victoria- - Pension or superannuation allowance, Right to-Date 1913.

of appointment-Pensions Abolition Act 1881 (Vict.) (No. 710), secs. 1, 2- Public Service Act 1883 (Vict.) (No. 773), sec. 99-Public Service Act 1890 MELBOURNE,

(Vict.) (No. 1133), sec. 107-Public Service Act 1893 (Vict.) (No. 1324), sec. 22. Feb. 26, 27.

Sec. 99 of the Public Service Act 1883 (Vict.) (sec. 107 of the Public Service Act 1890 (Vict.) ), provides that: "All persons classified or unclassified holding offices in any department of the public service at the time of the passing of this Act except persons appointed since the passing of the Act No. 710 " shall be

16 CLR 93

entitled to superannuation or retiring allowance compensation or gratuity to be computed under the provisions of Act No. 160, but save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall in any way affect alter or vary the first-mentioned Act so as to give any person appointed hereunder any claim to any pension superannuation or other allowance."

See. 22 of the Public Service Act 1893 provides that (1) In the calcula- tion of the rate of superannuation or retiring allowance or the amount of compensation or gratuity to which any officer may at any time be entitled such officer shall not be entitled to count as part of his service any service in respect of which he may have already received compensation or gratuity within the meaning of sec. 16 or Part VI. of the Act No. 160 on the occasion of any previous retirement from the public service of such officer or on the occasion of his services having been previously dispensed with. (2) This sec. tion shall not apply to any officer who at any time before the granting of such allowance compensation or gratuity has or shall have repaid into the consoli- dated revenue any compensation or gratuity so received by him on any occa. sion as aforesaid. (3) This section shall apply to the officers of the Parlia- ment and to the railway service as well as to the public service."

The petitioner was first employed in a department of the public service in 1874 as a supernumerary officer but was not appointed by the Governor in Council. In 1880 his services were dispensed with, and he was paid compen- sation for the loss of his employment but not under the authority of any Act. On 24th December 1881 Act No. 710 was passed. On 1st May 1883 the petitioner was again employed in the public service, and on 20th February 1884 he was appointed by the Governor in Council and was duly classified under the Public Service Act 1883. The petitioner remained in the service until 30th April 1911 when he retired, being over the age of 65 years. On May 1911 he repaid into the consolidated revenue the amount of the compen- sation paid to him in 1880.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Casey v The King

Details

AGLC: Casey v The King [1913] HCA 9
Case: [1913] HCA 9
Decision Date: 27 February 1913

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mr. Casey, sought to recover a pension or superannuation allowance from the Crown in respect of his service in the public service of Victoria. Mr. Casey had been initially employed in the public service in 1874, his services were dispensed with in 1880, and he received compensation. He was re-employed in 1883 and appointed by the Governor in Council, remaining in service until his retirement in 1911.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr. Casey was entitled to a pension or superannuation allowance under section 99 of the Public Service Act 1883 (Vict.) (which was also section 107 of the Public Service Act 1890 (Vict.)). This section provided that certain persons holding office at the time of its passing were entitled to such allowances, with an exception for "persons appointed since the passing of the Act No. 710". A further issue was whether section 22 of the Public Service Act 1893 (Vict.) conferred any additional rights upon Mr. Casey, particularly in light of his repayment of the compensation received in 1880.

The High Court, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, held that Mr. Casey was not entitled to a pension or superannuation allowance. The Court reasoned that Mr. Casey's re-appointment in 1883 meant he was a "person appointed since the passing of the Act No. 710", thus falling within the exception to section 99 of the Public Service Act 1883. The Court found no justification for interpreting "appointed" to refer to his original, terminated employment in 1874. Furthermore, the Court determined that section 22 of the Public Service Act 1893 was irrelevant as it only applied to officers already entitled to compensation, which Mr. Casey was not under the relevant legislation.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders