Fletcher v Nott

In *Fletcher v Nott*, the plaintiff, Ernest Harold Fletcher, sued the Government of New South Wales for £10,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal from his position as a police constable. The dispute arose after a Royal Commissioner reported that Fletcher had "framed" a man for a betting offence and given false evidence. Following this report, the Chief Secretary directed the plaintiff's suspension and subsequent dismissal from the police force. The Governor-in-Council later confirmed this dismissal. The case was presented to the court via a special case stated, following an agreement between the parties.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's dismissal was wrongful, thereby entitling him to damages. This required the court to determine if the plaintiff held his position at the pleasure of the Crown, meaning he could be dismissed at any time without cause, or if the provisions of the *Police Regulation Act 1899* (NSW) and the rules made thereunder, along with the *Police Regulation (Appeals) Act 1923* (NSW), imposed limitations on the Crown's power of dismissal, thereby creating a right to a formal inquiry and a tenure of office that could not be unilaterally terminated.

The court reasoned that, as a general principle of law, public servants hold their office at the pleasure of the Crown unless a statute clearly indicates otherwise. The court examined the *Police Regulation Act 1899* and the rules made under it, including provisions for disciplinary inquiries and appeals. However, it concluded that these provisions were administrative in nature and did not legally limit the Crown's inherent power to dismiss at pleasure. The court distinguished this case from precedents where statutory provisions were found to be inconsistent with dismissal at pleasure, finding that the rules in question did not confer legal rights on police officers to prevent dismissal without adherence to procedural steps. The court affirmed the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant, Melville Charles Nott, as nominal defendant on behalf of the Government of New South Wales, with costs. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.