Sutherland v. The Provost And Magistrates of Wick [1905] ScotLR 42_312 (11 January 1905)

Sutherland v. The Provost And Magistrates of Wick [1905] ScotLR 42_312 (11 January 1905)

The court held that the fixing of the town-clerk's salary is a matter for the discretion of the magistrates, and the court cannot interfere unless there are relevant and sufficient averments of dishonesty, corruption, or malicious intent. No such averments were established in this case. The mere increase in duties following the extension of the burgh does not entitle the town-clerk to a court-ordered increase in salary, nor does it constitute a reduction of salary or constructive dismissal. The magistrates' decision stands.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_312
Parties
Pursuer: Hector Sutherland; Defender: The Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the Burgh of Wick
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 January 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decision of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Remuneration of Public Officials, Discretion of Local Authorities, Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion, Tenure of Office, Salary Adjustment After Statutory Change
Public Law Municipal Law Employment Law Remuneration of Public Officials Discretion of Local Authorities Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion Tenure of Office Salary Adjustment After Statutory Change

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hector Sutherland

Pursuer

The Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the Burgh of Wick

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can fix or order an increase in the salary of a town-clerk following an extension of burgh boundaries and increase in duties
  2. 2 Whether the magistrates' discretion in fixing the salary is subject to judicial review absent proof of dishonesty or corruption
  3. 3 Whether an increase in duties without a corresponding increase in salary constitutes a reduction of salary or constructive dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the fixing of the town-clerk's salary is a matter for the discretion of the magistrates, and the court cannot interfere unless there are relevant and sufficient averments of dishonesty, corruption, or malicious intent. No such averments were established in this case. The mere increase in duties following the extension of the burgh does not entitle the town-clerk to a court-ordered increase in salary, nor does it constitute a reduction of salary or constructive dismissal. The magistrates' decision stands.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decision of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • Defenders assoilzied from the conclusions of the summons
  • No order for increase in salary or declarator; pursuer's claims refused