Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Hambrook
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1956 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Master and Servant - Per quod servitium amisit action - Civil servant - Injury by accident - Crown's claim for loss of services - Status of civil servant. - Civil Service - Established civil servant - Status.
On July 26, 1952, a tax officer, an established civil servant, when off duty and riding a motor-cycle, came into collision with a motor-car driven by the defendant. In consequence of the injuries he sustained, the tax officer was away from his employment until May 18, 1953. During the period of his incapacity he received sick pay from the Inland Revenue Commissioners.
The commissioners claimed damages from the defendant (who was two-thirds to blame for the accident) for loss of services of the tax officer. The action took the form of an action per quod servitium amisit:—
Held, (1) that an established civil servant was appointed to an office and was a public officer remunerated by moneys provided by Parliament, so that his employment depended, not on a contract with, but on appointment by the Crown.
(2) That, as a public officer, he had no right of action for wrongful dismissal although he could recover his salary for the time he had served.
(3) That the action per quod servitium amisit rested on a master and servant relationship and that was wholly different in kind from that of the Crown and an established civil servant whose duties were of a public nature and in part at least laid down by statute.
(4) That even if the relationship between the Crown and a civil servant was contractual, a contract which gave no remedy to the employee against his employer for its breach was wholly different in kind from those which had hitherto supported this type of action which should not be extended beyond its present limits.
(5) That in this form of action damage was an essential ingredient, and since the payment of sick pay was a voluntary act in the discretion of the Crown, it did not amount to damage in law.
Per curiam. Under modern legislation an injured man if he is in part to blame would only be entitled to recover a proportion of his damages and if, had the present action succeeded, the Crown were able to recover the whole of the tax officer's wages, it would not only be an injustice to the defendant, but would add another to the many anomalies which surround this class of action.
ACTION.
On July 26, 1952, a tax officer, an established civil servant, who was off duty and for his own purposes was riding a motorcycle, came into collision with a motor-car driven by the defendant. In consequence of the injuries he sustained, the tax officer was absent from his employment until May 18, 1953. During the period of his incapacity he received sick pay from the Inland Revenue Commissioners.
These proceedings were brought by the commissioners on behalf of the Crown pursuant to section 17 (2) of the
Sir Harry Hylton-Foster Q.C., S.-G., Sir Frank Soskice Q.C., Sir Reginald Hills and Rodger Winn for the Inland Revenue Commissioners.
N. R. Fox-Andrews Q.C. and Humfrey Edmunds for the defendant.
In addition to the cases referred to in the judgment, the following cases were cited in argument: Alton v. Midland Railway Co.F1; Blake v. LanyonF2; Bradford Corporation v. WebsterF3;
Brook's Wharf & Bull Wharf Ltd. v. Goodman Bros.F4; Davies v. Lord BerwickF5; Enever v. The KingF6; Fisher v. Oldham CorporationF7; British Transport Commission v. GourleyF8; Hart v. AldridgeF9; Jones Brothers (Hunstanton) Ltd. v. StevensF10; La Société Anonyme de Remorquage à Hélice v. BennettsF11; Lucas v. Lucas & High Commissioner for IndiaF12; Lumley v. GyeF13; McArthur v. The KingF14; Mallett v. DunnF15; Mankin v. Scala Theadrome Co. Ltd.F16; S.S. Raphael v. BrandyF17; Pilkington v. ScottF18; Commonwealth v. QuinceF19; Reading v. Attorney-GeneralF20; Metropolitan Police District (Receiver) v. TatumF21; Rex v. RichardsonF22; Stanbury v. Exeter CorporationF23; Thompson v. RossF24; Williams v. HollandF25; Woodgate v. KnatchbullF26; Yachuk v. Oliver Blais & Co. Ltd.F27; McKittrick v. ByersF28; Young & Young v. OttoF29; Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd.F30; Berringer v. Great Eastern Railway Co.F31; Drinkwater v. KimberF32; James Finlay & Co. Ltd. v. N.V. Kwik Hoo Tong Handel MaatschappijF33; Hall v. HollanderF34; Bennett v. AllcottF35; Mills v. ArmstrongF36; Gould v. StuartF37; Brown v. Dagenham Urban District Council.F38
March 14. LORD GODDARD C.J. read the following judgment. This is a civil proceeding by the Crown brought on its behalf by the Inland Revenue Commissioners pursuant to section 17 (2) of the
By section 4 of the
On July 26, 1952, Mr. Bryning was off duty and for his own purposes was riding a motor-cycle which, came into collision with a motor-vehicle driven by the defendant. This action was tried on certain admissions of fact which were that: (1) the responsibility for the collision was as to two-thirds that of the defendant and as to one-third that of Mr. Bryning. (2) Mr. Bryning was off duty at the time of the collision. (3) Mr. Bryning's injuries were such as to keep him from work from the date of the collision until May 16, 1953. (4) The sum paid to Mr. Bryning in respect of that period was £274 9s. 9d., but for reasons which are not material to this judgment the plaintiffs are only claiming £231 13s. 11d.
The question that falls for decision is whether the Crown are entitled to maintain the action commonly known as “per quod servitium amisit” in respect of the loss of the services of an established civil servant. There is no direct authority on this point in English law. The only case in which such an action has been brought is Attorney-General v. Valle-Jones,F39 where the Attorney-General preferred a Latin Information, claiming as damages the wages paid to and the expenses incurred on behalf of two members of the Royal Air Force who had been injured in a motor-car collision caused by the negligence of the defendant. But in that case the defendant conceded that an action for the loss of the services of a servant by the tortious acts of a third party was available to the Crown as an employer as well as to a subject, which is the precise point which is in issue in this case. In the recent case of Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd.F40 it was held that the action per quod servitium amisit did not lie at the suit of the Government of New South Wales for the loss of the services of a police constable, and while I shall have to deal fully and carefully with the judgment of the Judicial Committee in that case, it differs from the present because of the particular and peculiar position of a police constable, whose duties and authority remove him from the ordinary category of a Crown servant. It therefore becomes necessary to consider the origin and nature of this form of action, and the nature of the employment of an established civil servant.
This action has often been described as an anomaly, for instance by Lord Sumner in Admiralty Commissioners v. The S.S. Amerika,F41 where he said: “It appears to be a survival from the time when service was a status.” Villein status gave the lord a proprietary interest in his villeins; by the time of Henry IV a master was regarded, in the old law, as having a like interest in his servant. At any rate, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Antigua Trades and Labour Union Defendant/Appellant v George Herbert Walter Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]
...was not however that of master and servant because as Lord Goddard, C.J. pointed out in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hambrook (1956) 1 All E.R. 807 at 810, "an extablished civil servant, whatever his grade, is more properly described as an officer in the civil employment of Her Majesty".......
- Frank Coleman v Donald McDonald and Carol Smyth
-
Berenice Freeman Claimant v The Attorney General Chief Agricultural Officer Department of Agriculture Defendants
...maintained against the Crown as their tenure is at the pleasure of Her Majesty and cited authorities in support namely IRC v. Handbrook 1956 1 ALL ER 807 and The Privy Council in Shenton v Smith 1985 AC 222. Counsel for the Defendant cited Gould vs. Stewart 1896 AC 575 and she submitted t......
- JW Evelyn v William Chichester