Eastbourne Borough Council v Foster [2001] EWCA Civ 1091 (11 July 2001)

Eastbourne Borough Council v Foster [2001] EWCA Civ 1091 (11 July 2001)

The compromise agreement was ultra vires and void, so it could not effect a consensual termination or variation of the 1993 contract. However, the parties' conduct did not amount to consensual termination; rather, the original contract was repudiated by Eastbourne and accepted by Mr Foster, ending the 1993 contract. Nevertheless, Mr Foster's employment relationship continued on a new basis until 31 August 1999, entitling him to consideration for statutory benefits after his 50th birthday.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1091
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eastbourne Borough Council; Defendant/appellant: James Foster
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires Contracts, Termination of Employment, Restitution, Employment Status, Statutory Benefits
Employment Law Public Law Local Government Law Ultra Vires Contracts Termination of Employment Restitution Employment Status Statutory Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastbourne Borough Council

Claimant/respondent

James Foster

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (high Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the effect of an ultra vires and void compromise agreement on the underlying contract of employment?
  2. 2 Did the parties' conduct amount to consensual termination of the original contract?
  3. 3 What is the legal status of employment and entitlement to benefits after a void agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise agreement was ultra vires and void, so it could not effect a consensual termination or variation of the 1993 contract. However, the parties' conduct did not amount to consensual termination; rather, the original contract was repudiated by Eastbourne and accepted by Mr Foster, ending the 1993 contract. Nevertheless, Mr Foster's employment relationship continued on a new basis until 31 August 1999, entitling him to consideration for statutory benefits after his 50th birthday.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Foster's employment with Eastbourne terminated on 31 August 1999
  • Case remitted to High Court for further determination of entitlements and benefits