CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 266, 4 August 1921, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS

ALLEGED -WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. By Telegraph—Press Association. , Auckland, August 3. Mr. Justico Salmond gave judgment in the Supremo Court to-day on preliminary points raised in a ease in which Arthur Charles, Thynne, hank manager, of Moi-rinsville, claimed -€2OOO from the Bank of Australasia for alleged wrongful dismissal. Tho case, which was a , upecial one stated for the determination of the Court, involved two questions: (1) Whether the engagement of the plaintiff was property terminated; (2) whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive any contributions paid by him to tho provident fund. With regard to the first question His Honour held that -it depended upon the interpretation and effect of the agreement of service and on whether the agreement provided that service might bo terminated by notice in writing by either side or by the paying of a mouth's salary in lieu of notice. This being clearly provided, the dispute turned on the meaning of tho term "salary" in the agreement. Plaintiff was ip. receipt of a fixed salary of .£320, with house allowance of A's2, and on terminating his service lie was paid onetwelfth of .£2OO (one month's salary), thus disregarding tho lrou.se allowance. Plaintiff contended*that in assessing the month's salary payable to him it should be barfed on tho total annual of his romimeratkni. "I am satisfied,” said tho Judge, "that tho bank acted constitutionally, and that tho term ‘salary’ does not include the whole of the emoluments. The salary must bo distinguished from the al- • lowancefl. Allowances are in the nature of a reimbursement. An example is a traveller's allowance, and tho allowance •paid to defencq officers.” His Honour hold that the salary, therefore, was that sum which plaintiff was entitled to roceive so nomine only, and that in excluding tho allowance the bank had acted in accordance with the contract between tho parties. Wj,th regard to moneys contributed to the superannuation His Honour was of opinion that the plaintiff had no claim to this. Even if the plaintiff Was wrongfully dismissed he had no claim on the fund. The determination of these points of law disposed of tho whole action. Costs w'ere allowed to the defendant.