LawPavilion Electronic Law ...

case is in consonance with judgments of
English courts dealing with similar provisions
in English Statutes. See: Midland Railway
Company v. The Local Board for the District of
Withington 1882-3 11 Q.B.D. p.788 where the
Court of Appeal in England construed Section
264 of the Public Health Act of 1875 which is
similar to Section 97 of the Ports Act the same
way as was done by this court. Section 264
supra states that: "A writ or process shall not
be sued out against or served on any local
authority or any member thereof, or any
officer of a local authority, or persons acting
in his aid, for anything done or intended to be
done or omitted to be done under the
provisions of this Act, until the expiration of
one month after notice in writing has been
served on such local authority member,
officer, or person..." The position of the Law is
that where a suit is brought under an express
or specific contract it is no longer necessary to
serve on the Corporation pre-action notice.
Furthermore from decided authorities there
would be no need to serve pre-action notice
when goods have been sold, and the price is
to be paid upon quantum meruit, or for cases
of breach of contract, claims for work and
labour done. Clearly the appellant's claim is
founded in contract. The appellant's main
claim is for the payment of his entitlement
due from the respondent as a result of the
contract of employment they both entered