TNAG-0991-FCO40-1210-Policy-on-salaries-and-pensions-for-civil-service-in-Hong-Ko-1980 — Page 282

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

5 -

to matters involving pay the Crown is in no better a position

than any other employer. For this he relies upon a decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana in obrega v. The Attorney General of Guyana and the decision of this court in

Choi Sum v. The Attorney General

nd lastly that an

(2)

>

(3)

ordinary employer has no power to suspend his servant without

pay unless that power is conferred upon him by statute or

provided for in the contract itself. If authority is needed for that final proposition it is to be found in Hanley v.

(4)

Han14 (5)

Pease & Partners, Ltd. or McArdle v. Scotbeef Ltd.

Thus the Crown cannot arrogate to itself, or pass to the Governor of this Colony, a power that the law does not grant to the Crown and that therefore the Crown does not possess.

It is accepted that at common law the Crown has power to suspend a person from the actual performance of his office. It was said by the Australian judges to be a power of great antiquity and they referred, amongst others, to Slingsby's Case There the King sought to suspend one lir. Slingsby who held the office of The Kaster of the Kint.

Lord Nottingham thought the King was entitled to do so, upon the authority of many precedents, although the King would

continue to be liable for the salary that the office carried. Other examples of a suspension of this kind are referred to

(6)

·

in an article by Mr. D.W. Logan (7) Yet this is not a

prerogative which applies to the Crown alone. It was said

by Lord Nottingham to be "a liberty which every subject hath,

to refuse the service of any man whom he doth not like",

(8)

a right that has continued to modern times: see Konski v.

Peet

It would have been a useful right to the Crown in those days long past, when not only was an office often granted for life, but was treated in much the same way as a grant of

land which the holder could thus sell or otherwise deal with

as he liked. The holder could only be removed for misconduct.

(2) [1967] 10 West Indian Reports 187

(3) 1976] H.K.L.R. 609

(4)

1915 1 K.B. 698

(5) 1974 Scots Law Times 78

(6) 36 E.R. 821

(7) [1945] 61 L.Q.R. 240 at 253

(8) 1915] 1 Ch. 530 at 537

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.