TMI Blog1928 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular the minute of the 20th March, 1922. The question referred to their Lordships is whether the payment of compensation so determined in respect of Civil Servants or other officials or public servants transferred to the service of the Provisional Government or of the Government of the Irish Free State after the 20th March, 1922, is a payment of compensation within the meaning and true intent of Art X of the Articles of Agreement. 3. Article X is as fellows: The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to Judges, Officials, Members of the Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof. 4. This Act of 1920 is the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. 5. The arguments before their Lordships covered a wide range, and raised some problems difficult, of solution which lay on the fringe of the question. referred but which fortunately it is not necessary for their Lordships to solve. 6. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments at the hearing before the Board it is desirable to pass i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salary and emoluments. During the War the remuneration was increased by what was termed a bonus. At first no part of the bonus was included for the purpose of the calculation of these allowances, but gradually it was recognised by the Treasury and particularly by the minute of 20th March, 1922, that the bonus had become a regular part of the Civil Servants' remuneration, and that it should be taken into account in computing the retiring allowances. The bonus is not a fixed sum like the salary, but is variable and is calculated on a sliding scale by reference to the official index figure of the cost of living. 10. The scheme of Government under the Act of 1920 was superseded in December, 1921, by the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, which by Article 17 provided for a provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the transitional period pending the constitution of a Government of the Irish Free State. By the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, passed on 31st March, 1922, force of law was given to these Articles, and provisions were made for carrying the Treaty into effect. In pursuance of this Act an order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the sliding scale when the cost of living figure fell, but that it should not be increased beyond the amount ascertained at the date of retirement if the cost of living figure rose. This principle is known as the overriding maximum. (2) In regard to that portion of the lump sum payment which is computed on the bonus, the award was based upon 75 per cent, and not upon the whole of the bonus payable for the quarter preceding the date of retirement. 12. The meaning and intent of Article X and the principles upon which the compensation payable under it should be assessed, including the principles relating to the overriding maximum and the 75 per cent above-mentioned, were considered by the Judicial Committee on the hearing of the appeal in the case of Wigg v. Attorney-General of Irish Free State (1927) A.C. 674 : 96 L.J.P.C. 88 : (1927) Ir. R. 285 : 137 L.T. 450 : 43 T.L.R. 457. The plaintiffs in the action were two Civil Servants who sought to enforce their claims under Article X in the Courts of the Irish Free State. In expressing their opinion allowing the appeal in favour of the two Civil Servants, the Board, when referring to the effect of the minute of the 20th March, 192 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 757 Lord Brougham, in delivering the opinion of the Board, permitted himself to make soma; general observations, which seem, at first sight, to favour Mr. Dickie's contention. In that case an application was made for a re-hearing. The decision in the earlier case had been given ex parte, and was pronounced by default. The earlier order was in these circumstances rescinded, and a rehearing was allowed. Lord Brougham, in giving the opinion of the Board, however, said (page 126 Page of (1839) 1 Moo. P.C.--[Ed.]): It is unquestionably the strict rule, and ought to be distinctly understood as such, that no cause in this Court can be re-heard, and that an order once made, that is, a report submitted to Her Majesty, and adopted, by being made an order in Council--is final, and cannot be altered. The same is the case of the judgments of the House of Lords... Whatever, therefore, has been really determined in these Courts must stand, there being no power of re-hearing for the purpose of changing the judgment pronounced. Lord Brougham then pointed out that trivial errors in drawing up the judgment of the Board might competently be corrected. He then proceeded to add; With the except ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rains case (1839) 1 Moo. P.C. 117 : 2 M.I.A. 181 : 1 Sar. P.C.J. 175 : 12 E.R. 757 that would induce this Court so to interfere. . 13. The case which in comparatively recent times comes nearest to formulating a general proposition with reference to the competency of a re hearing is Hebbert v. Purchas (1871) 3 P.C. 605 : 7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 468 : 40 L.J. Ecc. 33 : 19 W.R. 898 : 17 E.R. 177. The decision of the Board is thus set out at page 671 Page of (1871) 3 P.C.--[Ed] : Their Lordships are of opinion, in respect of the two petitions addressed to the Crown, that no further proceedings should be taken therein. Having carefully weighed the arguments, and considering the great public mischief which would arise on any doubt being thrown on the finality of the decisions of the Judicial Committee, their Lordships are of opinion, that expediency requires that the prayer of the petitions should not be acceded to, and that they should be refused with costs It will be observed that the decision turned on expediency, not on competency, and that the Board abstained from laying down any general rule which is applicable to all cases. 18. The case of Hebbert v. Purchas (1871) 3 P.C. 605 : 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing a case to be re heard at the instance of one of the parties. But he added... Even before report, whilst the decision of the Board is not yet res judicata, great caution has been observed in permitting the re-hearing of appeals (page 663 Page of (1888) 11 A.C.--[Ed.]). 20. Again, in the case of Tooth v. Power (1891) A.C. 284 : 60 L.J.P.C. 39 : 64 L.T. 698 in which a previous decision was urged upon the Board as binding upon it, the Judicial Committee said: Their Lordships think it right to add that, although, for obvious reasons, the case of Barton v. Muir (1875) 6 P.C. 134 : 44 L.J.P.C. 19 : 31 L.T. 593 : 23 W.R. 427 was relied on as an authority absolutely binding upon them by both parties at the Bar, yet it would have been their duty, had the necessity arisen, to consider for themselves whether the decision is one which they ought to follow. It was given ex parte; and, that being the case, although great weight is due to the decision of this Board, their Lordships are 'at liberty to examine the reasons upon which that decision was arrived at, and if they should find themselves forced to dissent from these reasons, to decide upon their own view of the law.' Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
