|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(V14) 1 CLR 15
1929 November 21
[BECHER, C.J., SERTSIOS AND FUAD, JJ.]
PAUL EVANGELIDES
v.
CYPRUS MINES CORPORATION
Contract-Master and servant- Wrongful dismissal-Right in master to dismiss on 30 days' notice-Payment before action.
Appellant, an electrician, was engaged by respondent under a contract in writing which contained a clause entitling respondent to dismiss him without notice for misconduct and another independent clause providing for termination by respondent on 30 days' notice. After writing a letter to appellant which the Court held was an intimation of dismissal for misconduct, the respondent three days later purported to give him 30 days' notice under the other clause, and tendered him full salary to date of its expiry, which he received under protest. Appellant sued for damages for wrongful dismissal and for defamatory statements in the letter.
Held, that the service having been put an end to by the letter, and no misconduct being proved, the appellant was entitled to judgment, but that he could recover no damages beyond the 30 days' pay which he had received.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of District Court of Nicosia dismissing action (No. 733/25).
Theodotou for appellant: He was entitled to judgment for damages for libel. The District Court found there was privilege, but that defence was not pleaded.
Artemis for respondent: He has been paid all he could recover.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by the Chief Justice.
JUDGMENT:-
BELCHER, C.J.: If the second paragraph of the claim, which is damages "for the way in which plaintiff was dismissed" and for imputations on his professional skill, is to be regarded as a claim in tort for defamation we agree with the lower Court that it was successfully met by the defence of privilege: from the District Court's finding for the defendants it is to be inferred that the Court thought there was no evidence of malice, while the occasion was undoubtedly privileged.
The contract was put an end to by the letter, and the subsequent notice could have no effect; so that to the extent that the Court below failed to recognise the infringement of a right in the appellant we think its decision was erroneous: but it is well-established law that the circumstances of dismissal do not enhance damages: the measure of them is solely the value of the rights under the contract which the servant has lost by the master putting an end to it. In this case the proviso for a month's notice clearly limits those rights to the receipt of a month's wages, and as appellant has been paid more than that we think he should have judgment for nominal damages only, without costs as he sustained no actual loss.
Appeal allowed: judgment for respondent set aside: judgment for appellant for 1s damages; without costs.