A former government employee who complained he was inadequately compensated has had his case struck out in the Supreme Court

Timothy Stewart, who worked as a land title registration officer for ten years, accused the Government of breach of contract, misrepresentation and discrimination.

However, in a judgment handed down this week, Puisne Judge Andrew Martin struck out the case.

“The basic truth is that the plaintiff’s complaint is simply that he feels he was undervalued and underpaid for carrying out the responsibilities of the post he occupied for ten years,” the judge wrote.

“That is a common complaint, but it is not one for which the court has yet devised a remedy.”

The court heard that Mr Stewart was employed as a land title registration officer between 2011 and 2021, but declined to sign a new contract on the basis that the terms offered were “insulting”.

He subsequently launched a legal action against the Minister of Home Affairs, arguing that the post description for the position and the pay grade did not reflect the seniority or responsibility of the position.

Mr Stewart compared the position to that of senior Crown counsel and argued that the pay level should have reflected that, claiming that he had been underpaid and demanding arrears and other benefits dating back to 2011.

However, Mr Justice Martin said the statement of claim failed to establish facts to underpin his claims in a “logical or comprehensible” way.

“The plaintiff puts his main claim on the grounds of breach of contract,” the judge wrote. “However, no facts are alleged as to how his three separate contracts of employment were breached.

“The plaintiff accepted the offer of employment in each separate contractual period on the terms offered, including the terms of salary and benefits, which is the main item of damage claimed.

“It is not alleged that he was not paid according to the terms of his contract, nor that there was any breach of the terms of his employment contract according to their terms.”

Mr Justice Martin said that even if Mr Stewart was unaware of the relative seniority of the post when he took it, he gave no reason why he re-signed in 2014 and 2018 on the same terms without raising any of the issues.

“The gravamen of his complaint is that the post of LTRO ought to have carried the same level of compensation as to what he says are equivalent posts,” the judge wrote.

“He says that the job description for his post had been mistakenly treated as a lower grade of position, when he says that the post carried responsibilities that were equal to those of a senior crown counsel, and ought to have been paid at a similar grading level.

“The plaintiff also alleges that the compensation benefits applicable to the posts of senior crown counsel and crown counsel were ‘concealed’ from him until 2022, when he decided to refuse the offer of a renewed contract on terms which he felt did not recognise the appropriate level of seniority and responsibility.”

Mr Justice Martin wrote that Mr Stewart said he found the disparity by researching information publicly available on the government website, and as such he could not claim the information was “concealed” from him.

“There is no cause of action disclosed by the pleading, and no amount of generous interpretation can clothe the claims the plaintiff wishes to make with any legal validity,” he wrote.

The judge also said there was no evidence to support an allegation that he had been discriminated against based on his country of origin.

“In the course of argument, the plaintiff made a number of serious and unsupported allegations that a number of persons were guilty of dishonesty and criminality,” Mr Justice Martin added.

“None of these are included in the statement of claim, and rightly so, as they were entirely unsupported by any factual basis or justification.”

Mr Justice Martin subsequently struck out the case for lacking a reasonable cause of action.

The judge ruled that Mr Stewart is to pay the costs of the action.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers