Powell v Braun
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DENNING |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J0128-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 28 January 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J0128-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature.
Court of Appeal.
The Master of the Rolls
(Sir Raymond Evershed)
Lord Justice Denning and
Lord Justice Romer.
Mr MICHAEL B. SCHOLFIELD (instructed by Messrs Woodroffes) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
Mr E, ASHLEY BRAMELL (instructed by Messrs Meaby & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
We need not trouble you, Mr Scholfield.
In this case I have taken a different view from the learned Judge. The action was one brought for salary by the plaintiff, a lady formerly employed by the defendant. The claim comprehended two heads, first for a certain small sum for fixed remuneration, about which no question arises in this Court; and second for a further sum alleged to be due by virtue of a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff in March 1946 and the plaintiff's reply thereto.Since, in the end, the question for determination turns on the true Intention of the parties to be derived from this correspondence, I think it is desirable that the whole of the defendant's letter, and the whole of the letter from the plaintiff in reply should be read.
The defendant's letter is dated 18th March 1946, and is in these terms: "You have now been with me for just two years, both of them very eventful, and during the first you did without question many things which were hardly within your contract of engagement; I shall always remember with particular gratitude everything you did for Mrs Braun. As I have mentioned to you on various occasions, it is my wish for you to act and work on your own initiative rather than to feel you must always refer matters to me; I am, of course, on hand for any business problem which may arise, but now we have twp juniors it is more necessary than before that you are able to handle matters yourself both from the business angle and from your own personal prestige and authority as befits your position.
"I have not hitherto mentioned to you the question of a rise in salary, and with the added responsibility you now have I feel that some recognition of this and of past service is due to you, A stereotyped rise is all very well, but my opinion has always been that a bonus on the net trading profit is more interesting to anyone. I therefore propose to adopt this with you and that, say, about May each year I shall pay you an amount according to the trading results of the previous financial year to the end of March; I cannot say at this juncture what the amount will be, but I am sure you will not be disappointed with it from year to year.
"I will conclude with the hope that you may stay with me for many a day as my confidential secretary and senior member of the staff even if the latter be only small".
The plaintiff, Miss Pamela Powell, replied to thatletter on the same date as follows: "Your letter of today was quite unexpected, but a very pleasant surprise. Your idea of a yearly bonus is very considerate, and one which I much appreciate, I do agree with you that this is more interesting than an actual weekly increase, and it is certainly very encouraging.
"You have always done everything possible to make my work happy and interesting, and have assisted me in all ways, and I sincerely hope that I shall be able to influence our juniors in a similar manner, and that between us we shall build a really flourishing business. There are very few people who would have included their secretary as a member of the family as you and Mrs Braun included me during our stay in Ayr, Anything I did for Mrs Braun during her illness has been more than repaid in the friendship and consideration you have both shown to me both in Ayr and since we returned, I also hope that I shall have the pleasure of working with you for 'many a day'".
Unhappily the amiable and generous language in which the plaintiff and defendant addressed each other in March 1946 did not very long persist. Perhaps the moral is that it is highly desirable to be precise in matters of this kind. Certainly within quite a short time the defendant appears to have been somewhat grudging in implementing whatever he intended by this letter that he had written; and I am bound to say that at the present time he cuts to my mind a somewhat unattractive figure. Mean to his employee, he was obviously held by the learned Judge to be an unreliable witness, I have no doubt, on the facts as found by the Judge, that the plaintiff's continued service of the defendant would never have occurred had it not been for her reliance upon this promise; and as the Judge expressly said, she thenceforth undertook more responsible work than otherwise she had performed, or would have performed. Still, that is nonecessary answer to the questions that are raised, whether having regard to the vague and general terms of these letters, the plaintiff can now sum upon the letters for the sums which she claims.
Two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council
...597 at 613; Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571 at 581, 589–590. 67Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 43 Ll Rep 359 at 371; Powell v Braun [1954] 1 WLR 401 at 404–405; [1954] 1 All ER 484 at 485–486; Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 600 at 614–617; cf Th......
- Placer Development Ltd v Commonwealth
-
Compagnie Interafricaine De Travaux v South African Transport Services and Others
...572; Hudson First Supplement (1979) C at 165-9; Dortey and Sharkey Building and Construction Contracts (1981) at 84-5; Powell v Braun [1954] 1 All ER 484 (CA); Cana Construction Co Ltd v The Queen [1973] 37 DLR (3d) 418; Hydro Holdings (Edms) Bpk v Minister of Public Works and Another 1977 ......
-
Anthon v Guyana Mining Enterprises Ltd
...meruit, a claim for reasonable renumeration for work done. It is not an action for damages. As said by Sir Raymond Evershed, M.R. in Powell v. Braun [1954] 1 All E.R. 484 at p. 486 - letter D: “I think the principle of quantum meruit or of reasonable remuneration (which comes to the same th......