379
Sir W.Rees Davies ie 54 and wr. Gompertz 50,
so if the proposeu uruinance is extended to the present Judges and either of them were compulsorily retired at b5 (which I should hope is very unlikely) we might soon have another Fisher case.
The gist of Mr. Fisher's complaint, apart from the equity of the decision in all the circum- stances of his case, was that the new Ordinance (55 age limit) aid not apply to him, his "rights" under the repaakprousion (60 age limit) being preserved by the Interpretation Ordinance.
That point was of course never settled, whether by special reference to the Privy Council or otherwise, owing to his death, but I was, and am of opinion (which the Law officers here shared) that
he would have failed.
A8, nowever, the Hong Kong Interpretation Grainance contains provisions (section 12) similar to those in the Straits Interpretation Ordinance on which Mr. Fisher relied I think it would be expedient that the proposed Hong Kong Ordinance should contain aprovision that it applies to all officers (including Juages, if so decided) whether appointed before or after the passing of the Orainance notwithstanding any thing in the Interpretation Ürainance or any other Law or Urainance to the contrary.
>
of Sicili 3999/144 1* cope 2.0. Report
to Sinaits 26390/15
We now come to the question of policy whether the Uruinance should apply to the Junges or not. iar. Sercombe Smith has put the case against it with some force and points out that Juage who on appoint-
ment had every reason to suppose that he might serve till 60 will if compulsorily retired at 55 lose
5 years' salary and years counting for pension.
An executive officer similarly retired would
of
of course be in the same position, but a Juage, comparative- ly, stands to lose more heavily over his pension and this might possibly be taken into consideration.
In Hong Kong the executive officer would lose ths, a Junge might lose as much as 10 the, though in 60
60 the unlikely event of his having been a Judge in Hong Kong for over 14 years his loss would be only the.
60
The Pension Rules as to Juages in the Straite and Federated Malay States are practically to the same effect. A Ceylon Juage gets 1 th for each year's service as Judge up to the maximum of 15ths for 15 years' service
or more
1
30
30
I don't think this point as to the Judges pension rights was specially considered when the Straits ordinance of 1912 reducing the age limit from 60 to 55 was passed, ana made to apply, in the absence of provision to the contrary, to Judges appointed before it was passed.
In favour of the policy of making the proposed Orainance in Hong Kong apply to Juages previously appointed there is the fact that this has been done in the Straits.
. I am not sure whether the age limit in the Federated Kalay States was 60 before the Pensions Enactment of 1906 was passed and fixed it at 55, or in Ceylon before section 17 of the Pension minute of 1908 came into force.
If so the position is the same in the Federated Malay States and Ceylon as in the Straits, and it seems uifficult to put the Juages now in office in Hong Kong in a more favourable position than the Judges were given in the Straits in 1912 (and possibly in F... in 1906 and in Ceylon in 1906).
In view of the position as to the Juages and the age limit in these other Eastern Colonies, etc. I think there could be no doubt that the proposed Hong Kong
Uruinance