Hannam v Bradford Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1970 |
| Date | 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Education - Teacher - Contract - Voluntary school - Dismissal of teacher by governors - Local education authority's power to prohibit dismissal - Right of teacher to hearing - Whether contractual - Whether local education authority party to contract of employment -
In November, 1962, the plaintiff became a physics teacher at a voluntary school maintained by the defendant council who were the local education authority. The articles of government of the school, made pursuant to section 24 (2) (a) of the Education Act, 1944,F1 laid down that the appointment of an assistant master “shall be made by the governors to their service in consultation with the head master” and that his appointment “shall … be determinable only upon two months' notice in writing by either side … provided that the local education authority shall have power … to prohibit the dismissal of an assistant master without the consent of the authority.” The articles further laid down that “where a meeting of the governors or of the local education authority is held to consider the termination” of an assistant master's employment he “shall be entitled to appear, accompanied by a friend, at any such meeting.” On October 6, 1967, the plaintiff absented himself from his duties without leave and never returned to the school. On December 19, 1967, the governors terminated his employment by giving him due notice. On January 18, 1968, the staff subcommittee of the defendant council resolved not to prohibit the plaintiff's dismissal by the governors. Three members of that subcommittee, including the chairman, were governors of the school but had not been present at the governors' meeting of December 19. The plaintiff brought an action in the county court against the defendant council claiming that he had been wrongfully dismissed and that there had been a breach by them of their contractual obligation to ensure that the inquiry of the staff subcommittee was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and by persons who were properly qualified and not liable to bias. The county court judge rejected the claim for wrongful dismissal but found that, as the staff subcommittee included three members who were likely to be biased, their decision could not stand and the defendant council was liable for breach of contract, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff for an initial 40s. damages.
On appeal by the defendant council:—
Held, (1) that the trial judge was right in holding that a real likelihood of bias existed when the three governors sat upon the staff subcommittee as they did not cease to be an integral part of the body whose action was being impugned and, accordingly, the decision of that subcommittee could not stand (post, pp. 942C–F, 945H–946A, 949G).
But (2), allowing the appeal (Sachs L.J. dissenting), that the plaintiff was employed by the governors alone there being no tripartite agreement bringing in the local education authority which conferred on the plaintiff a right to a hearing by contract (post, pp. 948C, 949A) that the plaintiff's right to a hearing before the defendant council was conferred under quasi-statutory provisions (post, p. 948E, F); and that, accordingly, as there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant council entitling him to a hearing, the claim for damages for breach of contract was misconceived (post, pp. 948G, H, 949D).
The following cases are referred to in the judgments:
Blanchard v. Dunlop [
Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd. [
Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon [
Reg. v. Camborne Justices, Ex parte Pearce [
Reg. v. Rand (
Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy [
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Hobbs v. Tinling [
APPEAL from Judge Hartley at Bradford County Court.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Sachs L.J.
Colin Duncan Q.C. and Bryan Bush for the defendant council.
The plaintiff did not appear and was not represented.
SACHS L.J. This is an appeal from a judgment of Judge Hartley given on February 24, 1969, at Bradford County Court. The plaintiff is a schoolmaster who from November, 1962, to October, 1967, taught physics at St. Bede's Grammar School, Bradford, a voluntary aided school maintained by the defendants, who are the local education authority.
On October 6, 1967, he absented himself from his duties without leave in circumstances to which further reference will be made. He never returned to his duties. On December 19, the school governors met and terminated his employment by giving him notice to take effect on April 30, 1968, thus giving him the length of notice required by his contract. They suspended him from his duties during that period.
On January 18, 1968, the staff subcommittee of the defendant council met and held an inquiry as to whether the council should exercise its power stemming from section 24 (2) (a) of the Education Act, 1944, (crystallised in the school's articles of government and the relevant conditions of service of teachers) to prohibit the plaintiff's dismissal. It was resolved: “That the power of the council, as the local education authority, to prohibit the dismissal of the teacher by the governors of the school, be not exercised.” This decision was affirmed by the full council on February 22, 1968. The plaintiff's dismissal accordingly took effect on April 30, up to which date he was paid his salary in full.
In his action, the plaintiff's claim fell into two parts. First, he asserted that he had been wrongfully dismissed by the defendants. This claim was rejected by the county court judge on the ground that his contract of employment was with the governors of the school. There is no cross appeal against that decision which was obviously correct. The second claim made was that, for a number of reasons, there had been a breach by the defendant council of their contractual obligation to ensure that the inquiry of the staff subcommittee was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and by persons who were properly qualified and not liable to bias. Some eight grounds were put forward by the plaintiff as justifying the second claim. Of these, the county court judge rejected seven; and again as to those there is no cross appeal. On the eighth, however, he found in favour of the plaintiff and decided that, as the subcommittee which determined the matter included three members likely to be biased, their decision could not stand. Having concluded that the defendants were thus liable for breach of contract, he ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiff for an initial 40s. damages and that the assessment of further damages be adjourned until it had been ascertained what might transpire as a result of the judgment. The defendants now appeal, alleging that there was no contract at all between themselves and the plaintiff touching such an inquiry; that if there was such a contract, it did not apply to a termination of employment by due notice; and that in any event there was no breach of that contract as regards the composition of the subcommittee. In the alternative, they allege that the damages are, upon the facts, limited to 40s.
In the course of the proceedings before this court, as in those before the county court, it became necessary to consider the interpretation of some far from clear provisions of the school's articles of government which are expressed as having been made by the Minister of Education, and of the conditions of service of teachers adopted thereunder by the defendant council. Of those points, some are of considerable general importance both to teachers and to those who employ them. It was thus with regret that this court was able to hear one party only, the appellant council, owing to the failure of the respondent plaintiff to appear. Having regard, however, to the history of the appeal, this court felt constrained to proceed in the plaintiff's absence and not to leave the matter still further in abeyance, with the rights of the parties, which had been left somewhat fluid by the county court, undetermined. The appeal first came into the warned list on November 11, 1969, whereupon the plaintiff obtained an adjournment on the ground of illness supported by a medical certificate. Since then there has been extensive correspondence between the plaintiff and the appeal office. The appeal was stood out of the list at the beginning of this term and then further adjourned. The plaintiff, by successive letters from January 9 onwards, was informed that a medical certificate was required if adjournments after January 26 (and, later, after March 9) were to be granted. A final warning was given at the end of last month; but no medical certificate was received. Further, the adjournment was opposed by the defendants and thus could not be justified when, in the face of urgent letters and telegrams, no evidence supporting a need for an adjournment was forthcoming.
Mr. Duncan has, in the embarrassing circumstances, been of course meticulously careful to draw the court's attention to all such points as the plaintiff could properly have wished to be put before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council
...AG [1992] 3 SLR (R) 552; [1993] 1 SLR 882 (refd) Draper v British Optical Association [1938] 1 All ER 115 (refd) Hannam v Bradford Corp [1970] 1 WLR 937 (distd) Law Society of Singapore v Nathan Edmund [1998] 2 SLR (R) 905; [1998] 3 SLR 414 (refd) Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Counc......
-
Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council
...of the Disciplinary Committee which was appointed to hear the complaints.Counsel refers to the case of Hannam v Bradford City Council [1970] 2 All ER 690 in support of her contention that it is not necessary to pinpoint specific incidents that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias on ......
- Hock Hua Bank (Sabah) Bhd v Yong Liuk Thin CA
- Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan
-
Natural Justice and Disciplinary Cases in Britain and France
...Conway v. Rimrner, [1968] AC 910 Exp. Fry, [1954] 1 WLR730 Glynn v. Keele University, [1971] 1 WLR 487 Hannam v. Bradford Corporation, [1970] 1 WLR 937 Herring v. Templeman, [1973] 3 All ER 569 Hounslow LBC v. Twickenham Garden Developments, 11973) Ch 233 Jeffs v. New ZealandDairy Productio......