Spooner v Alexander [1912] HCA 14

Spooner v Alexander [1912] HCA 14

There was no evidence establishing that Alexander had a reasonable cause for absenting himself from work, as the custom relied upon required permission to be sought and granted, and there was no proof that refusal was unreasonable or that Alexander reasonably believed it was. The contract did not include a term entitling a delegate to absent himself without permission. Thus, the conviction under the Act should stand (majority: Griffith CJ and Barton J; Isaacs J dissenting).

Parties
Appellant: John William Spooner; Respondent: Hyam Alexander
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 April 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed (by majority); prohibition order discharged; conviction and fine restored.
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Absence From Work, Reasonable Cause, Implied Contractual Terms, Custom and Usage in Employment, Mens Rea, Industrial Relations
Employment Law Contract Law Criminal Law Master and Servant Absence From Work Reasonable Cause Implied Contractual Terms Custom and Usage in Employment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 42 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John William Spooner

Appellant

Hyam Alexander

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, a servant, absented himself from work without reasonable cause under section 4 of the Masters and Servants Act 1902 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether custom or implied contract terms justified the absence
  3. 3 Whether a bona fide belief in a right to be absent constitutes reasonable cause or lawful excuse

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence establishing that Alexander had a reasonable cause for absenting himself from work, as the custom relied upon required permission to be sought and granted, and there was no proof that refusal was unreasonable or that Alexander reasonably believed it was. The contract did not include a term entitling a delegate to absent himself without permission. Thus, the conviction under the Act should stand (majority: Griffith CJ and Barton J; Isaacs J dissenting).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (by majority); prohibition order discharged; conviction and fine restored.

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged.
  • Order nisi for prohibition discharged.