Felix T Ramram v National Broadcasting Commission, Leo Morgan and Collee Puro (1990) N1110

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (1990) N1110
• Date: 16 November 1990
• Year: 1990

Full Title: Felix T Ramram v National Broadcasting Commission, Leo Morgan and Collee Puro (1990) N1110

National Court: Doherty J

Judgment Delivered: 16 November 1990

1 Damages—wrongful dismissal—distress—anxiety—application of Employment Act (Ch373) to instrumentalities of the State—declarations not given without special circumstances—distress over termination not actionable

2 DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DISMISSAL—Application of Employment Act 373 to Instrumentalities of the State—Declarations not given without special circumstances—Distress for termination not actionable.

The plaintiff claimed damages amounting to salary and other employment entitlements for eight years following termination of employment with the first defendant. He purported to claim for distress and anxiety in the course of evidence. He also claimed against the second defendant (the Chairman) and the third defendant (an employee) of the first defendant. He sought declarations that he was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to be employed.

Held:—

(1) No action lay against the second and third defendants in the absence of evidence that they acted maliciously in having the plaintiff dismissed;

(2) Declaration of right to be employed will only be made in special circumstances;

(3) The Employment Act 373 does not apply to the National Broadcasting Commission but its provisions may be a guide in assessing damages;

(4) There is no automatic right to continuous employment or damages for early termination in Contracts of employment that are not for a fixed term.

Beck v Atlas Hire [1984] PNGLR 158, Rooney v Forest Industries Council [1990] PNGLR 407, Taylor v National Union of Seamen [1967] 1 WLR 532, Sulaiman v PNG University of Technology (1987) N610, Brian Hodson v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1985] PNGLR 303 and Cox v Phillips Industries [1976] ICR 178 referred to

___________________________

Doherty J: The plaintiff sues the three defendants for "wrongfully and in breach in the provisions of the National Broadcasting Commission (National Officers and Employees) Determination" dismissing him and claims damages. The plaintiff was dismissed from his employment with the first defendant on the 1 February 1982. He claims damages in respect of:—Accrued recreational leave for three years, loss of recreational leave for four years, loss of superannuation for four years, loss of salary for a total of eight years, (less amounts earned by the plaintiff), expenses incurred as a result of the dismissal, general damages for mental distress, anxiety and embarrassment and declarations (apparently of his right to be employed).

The defendant is a statutory corporation incorporated under an Act, the Broadcasting Commission Act (Ch149). At the time of the plaintiff's dismissal the second defendant was Chairman of the National Broadcasting commission and the third defendant was the plaintiff's immediate supervisor at his place of employment in Vanimo, West Sepik Province.

During interim applications in relation to this matter I enquired as to the basis for the liability of the second and third defendant and was informed that they were being sued in their personal capacity, not because they were servants or agents of the first Defendant, but because they had acted maliciously in the wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff.

I was informed that relevant evidence would be adduced to this effect.

In the documents before me I have been unable to find any personal action on the part of the second defendant towards the plaintiff. There is a letter with a reference to the "Chairman having terminated the...