Commissioner for Government Transport v Chapman [1957] HCA 41
The respondent ceased to be an officer on 13 November 1953 when the employment relationship was terminated. Therefore, he was not entitled to the additional leave benefits conferred by the Government Railways and Transport (Amendment) Act 1953 (N.S.W.) which came into operation on 11 December 1953.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Commissioner for Government Transport; Respondent: George Nears Chapman
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to High Court of Australia
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Public Sector Employment, Long Service Leave, Statutory Leave Entitlements, Retirement From Public Service
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner for Government Transport
Appellant
George Nears Chapman
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to High Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was still an officer at the time of the enactment of the 1953 amendment and so entitled to its benefits
- 2 Proper construction of 'retirement' under s. 123 of the Transport Act 1930-1952 (N.S.W.)
- 3 Whether payment in lieu of leave constituted continuation of employment
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent ceased to be an officer on 13 November 1953 when the employment relationship was terminated. Therefore, he was not entitled to the additional leave benefits conferred by the Government Railways and Transport (Amendment) Act 1953 (N.S.W.) which came into operation on 11 December 1953.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Order of Supreme Court set aside
- Judgment entered for the appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment