Morley v Hunkin

The case of *Morley v Hunkin* involved a dispute between George James Morley, a public servant in South Australia, and the Crown concerning his salary. Morley had been appointed as an accountant at a salary of £510 per annum. Following a reclassification of his office, the salary assigned to that position was reduced to a maximum of £348 per annum. However, section 11e of the *Public Service Acts 1916 to 1925* (S.A.) protected his salary from reduction due to this reclassification, meaning he continued to receive £510. Subsequently, Morley was transferred to another department under section 21 of the Act, which deals with excess officers and allows for transfer to positions of lower classification and salary. Upon this transfer, his salary was reduced to £348 per annum. Morley claimed he was entitled to his original salary of £510 until his service terminated, based on section 11e. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia on appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 11e of the *Public Service Acts* protected Morley's salary from reduction when he was transferred to a position of lower classification and salary under the general provisions of section 21. The Crown argued that section 11e only protected against reductions arising directly from the initial reclassification and did not prevent salary reductions under other applicable provisions of the Act, such as section 21, which dealt with the transfer of excess officers. Morley contended that section 11e conferred a personal right to his salary, which could only be terminated by promotion or transfer to an office providing a salary not less than his original rate, and that section 21 could not operate to reduce his salary.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal and reversing the decision of the Full Court of South Australia, held that section 11e conferred a personal right to a particular rate of salary upon the officer, independent of the specific office held. The Court reasoned that the language of section 11e was clear and unambiguous, providing that an officer protected by the section would continue to be paid at their previous rate until promoted or transferred to another office offering a salary not less than that previously received. While acknowledging the general power of transfer under section 21, the Court found that this provision could not be applied in a manner that would reduce the salary of an officer protected by section 11e, as this would contradict the specific terms of the latter section. The Court concluded that the protection afforded by section 11e was not overridden by the general provisions of section 21 in relation to salary reduction.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Full Court, and restored the judgment of Cleland J. This meant that Morley was entitled to the difference between the salary he received after his transfer and his original salary of £510 per annum. The respondent was ordered to pay Morley's costs of the appeal to the Full Court and the appeal to the High Court.