Owens v The Queen

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1900
• Date: 01 January 1900
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)

Owens

and

The Queen.

Vol. II.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 513 OWENS v. THE QUEEN (1). Q. B. l),v. 1899. The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act 1879 (42 Sf 43 Vict. c. 74) Nov. 1, 2, 29. Statute, interpretation Statutory rules Poicer to alter such rules Delegation of legislative authorityUltra viresPetition of Pight-Costs of the Crown (23 $ 24 Vict. c. 34, s. 11). The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, created a pension fund for teachers who should elect to accept its benefits in lieu of the gratuities which under the former system the}- might have been granted on superannuation. This fund consisted of a Parliamentary grant supplemented by contributions or deductions from the teachers' salaries. Under the Schedule Rules (which by s. 11 were to be construed and to have effect as part of the Act) a quarterly deduction of 9s. 9d. entitled teachers in the suppliant's position to a pension of £88 on retirement at the age of 65. Section 6 provided that all questions of pension should he determined by the Treasury; and s. 11 that the Schedule Rules might " from time to time be revoked, varied, and added to by the Lord Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury." In 1885, the Lord Lieutenant, with the approval of the Treasury, made new Rules under the Act, reducing the amount of the teachers' contributions. In 1897, finding that the previous bases of calculation in 1879 and 1885 were founded on mistake and error, and that the fund was deficient, the Lord Lieutenant, with Treasury approval, made new Itules increasing the teachers' contributions, in the case of the suppliant and others in the like position, to 17s. lid. a quarter. Tho suppliant objected, aud presented a petition of right, alleging a binding contract in 1879, between the Treasmy and the suppliant, that, on the basis of the schedule deductions of 1879, the suppliant should be entitled to a pension of £88 on retirement, and alleging that, unless with his consent, this contract could not be varied, and further that the Rules of 1897 were ultra vires. Held, that, notwithstanding sect. 6 of the Act, the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the question of the validity of the Rules of 1897, but that these Rules were not ultra vires, and that judgment should accordingly be entered for the Crown. Held, further (diss. Sir P. O'Brien, L.C.J.), that, even under the circumstances, the Court had no discretion to refuse costs against the unsuccessful suppliant. (1) Before Sir P. 0' Brien, L.C.J., and Johnson, Murphy, and Gibson, JJ. 514 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1900. Q. B. Biv. New Tkiai, Motion. 1899-___ The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, created a Owens pension Fund for teachers who should elect to accept its benefits The Queen, in lieu of the gratuities which under the former system they might have been granted on superannuation. This fund consisted of a Parliamentary grant, supplemented by contributions or deductions from the teachers' salaries. Under the Schedule Eules (which by sect. 11 were to be construed and to have effect as part of the Act) a deduction of 9s. 9d. entitled teachers in the suppliant's position to a pension of £88 on retirement at the age of sixty-five. Sect. 6 provided that all questions of pension should be determined by the Treasury ; and sect. 11 that the Schedule Ilules might " from time to time be revoked, varied, and added to" by the Lord Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury. In 1885 the Lord Lieutenant, with the approval of the Treasury, made new Eules under the Act, reducing considerably the amount of the teachers' contributions. In 1897, finding that the previous bases of calculation in 1879 and 1885 were founded on mistake and error, and that the fund was deficient, the Lord Lieutenant, with Treasury approval, made new Eules increasing the teachers' contributions, in the case of the suppliant and others in the like position to 17s. lid. The suppliant objected, and presented a Petition of Eight, alleging a binding contract in 1879 between the Treasury and the suppliant that on the basis of the schedule deductions of 1879 the suppliant should be entitled to a pension of £88 on retirement, and alleging that unless with his consent this contract could not be varied; and further, that the Eules of 1897 were ultra vires. The petition was tried before Mr. Justice Madden without a jury on the 1st May, 1899. The pleadings and the various documents, including letters and reports in evidence, or accepted by consent as evidence, are sufficiently referred to in the judgments. At the trial the suppliant, Patrick Owens, examined, stated that he was appointed a teacher in 1872, and in 1877 became a principal teacher of the 1st Division of the 1st Class, and agreed to the various " stoppages"9s. 9d. down to 1886, and 8s. 9d. thenceforward to 1st January, 1898. He refused to pay the increased premiums or " stoppages " for 1899 under the new Eules. Vol. II.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 515 promulgated in 1897, and had since received his salary, less the Q. B. Div. new deductions, under protest. He had no knowledge at any______1899- time of the calculations on which the pension fund was hased. His 0w^ENS salary (£70 in 1880) had been increased (by 20 per cent.) to £84 The Queen. under the Act of 1892 (55 & 56 Yict. c. 42, sched. 4). The learned Judge reported that to prevent interruption of the business at Nisi Prius he had, by consent, left the suppliant to move the Court for such relief as he might be entitled to upon the evidence in the case. The suppliant now moved for judgment pursuant to the leave so reserved. The Rt. Hon. TheMacdermot, Q.C, Ronan, Q.C, Campbell, Q.C, and Collins, for the suppliant. The Attorney-General (The Right Hon. John Atkinson, Q.C), Wright, Q.C, Bourke, Q.C, Henry, Q.C, and Morphy, for the Crown. Cur. adv. milt. Sir P. O'Brien, L.C.J.: Nov. 29. Mr. Owens, a National School teacher, the suppliant in this matter,, seeks a declaration that certain Rules, purporting to be made by the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, in pursuance of the powers vested in them by the National School Teachers Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Yict. c. 74) are ultra vires, and made without and in excess of jurisdiction, and that accordingly they are not binding upon him. The facts upon which the suppliant bases his claim for the relief he seeks may be shortly stated. They are as follows: In 1879 the National School Teachers Act, which provided for the superannuation and retirement of National School teachers was passed; and subsequently to that date, namely, on the 15th June, 1880, Mr. Browning wrote from the National School Teachers Superannuation Office to Mr. Owens. It is not requisite to set out the whole letter; it suffices to set out so 516 THE IRISH REPORTS, [190d. Q. B. Div. much of it as is necessary to show what the controversy is. ^899- He said:-Owens v. " Sir,I am now in a position to acquaint you that you will be entitled to The Queen. seom,e the full benefits of tlie National School Teachers Pension Act (42 & 43 Sir P. O'Brien, Vict. c. 74), by submitting to a quarterly stoppage from your salary, so long L.C.J. as yOU snall be aged less than 65 years, of 9s. del. This will entitle you to pension privileges of the First Class First Division, viz. a pension from the age of 65 of £88 a-year, with the right to retire at any time after completing the age of 55, on reduced rates of pension, rising from £34 a-year." To this letter Mr. Owens replied on the 16th June, 1880, and said: "Sir,I request to be brought into the Pension System under Act 42 & 43 Vict. c. 74 ; and I elect to be subject to a quarterly stoppage of 9s. Qd., securing a pension of the First Class First Division." This was the reply of Mr. Owens. Subsequently a formal document embodying the terms of his election to come into the pension system under the 42 & 43 Vict. c. 74, was signed by Mr. Owens and sent to the Treasury, and it has since been kept by that department. Mr. Owens submitted for some years to the prescribed stoppage of 9s. 9d. a quarter, and has always been willing to submit to a stoppage of that amouut. Mr. Owens apparently thought that his position under the pension system had been stereotyped by what had taken place, that as long as he fulfilled the obligation of submitting to a quarterly stoppage from his salary of 9s. 9(/., a pension of £88 on retirement at the age of sixty-five was secured to him. But he has sustained a very rude shock, because on the 15th December, 1897, he is told by the same department which had assured him that a quarterly stoppage of 9s. 9d. would be adequate to secure him a pension of £88, that, in order to secure the self-same pension of £88 he must for the future submit not merely to a quarterly stoppage of 9s. 96?., but to a quarterly stoppage of nearly double the amount, a quarterly stoppage of 17s. lie?. This, of course, was a very great surprise to Mr. Owens. The Commissioners of the Treasury, by their officer, Mr. Browning, informed Mr. Owens that new Ilules had been passed on the 22nd November, 1897, by which it was provided that for Vol. II.] QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 517 " Your minute gives me to understand that in order to retain those pension rights which I contracted for eighteen years ago, I must elect to pay henceforward the increased premium under the new Eules. I beg to state, therefore, that, acting under compulsion, I elect to pay this increased premium, retaining to myself the right to dispute a claim which, according to the highest opinion, is illegal, and for which, even if it be legal, I do not see tho necessity." This is the last letter to which I shall refer. It raises the question at issue iu clear relief. Were the new rules under which this claim for an increased quarterly stoppage of 17s. lid. was made, authorised by the Act of Parliamentthe 42 & 43 Vict. c. 74 P This is the net question; and, after very careful consideration of the case, and some fluctuation of...