Hudson & Ors v H. M. Treasury & Anor Rev 1 [2003] EWCA Civ 1612 (18 November 2003)

Hudson & Ors v H. M. Treasury & Anor Rev 1 [2003] EWCA Civ 1612 (18 November 2003)

The appellants had no contractual, equitable, or other right to any sum beyond their gross pay, and the alleged 'abatements' were not contributions but part of the process of fixing pay. No benefit was conferred on the respondents at the appellants' expense, and the claims for restitution and breach of trust/fiduciary duty were plainly and obviously bad in law. The claim was therefore bound to fail and was properly struck out.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1612
Parties
Appellants: Hudson & Ors; Respondents: H. M. Treasury & Anor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, Constructive Trusts, Fiduciary Duty, Strike Out Applications, Armed Forces Pensions
Public Law Employment Law Pensions Law Unjust Enrichment Restitution Constructive Trusts Fiduciary Duty Strike Out Applications +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hudson & Ors

Appellants

H. M. Treasury & Anor

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Armed Forces Pension Scheme was in substance a contributory scheme despite being non-contributory in form
  2. 2 Whether the appellants made 'deemed contributions' via 'abatements' in pay and are entitled to restitution
  3. 3 Whether the respondents owed fiduciary duties or were constructive trustees in respect of the alleged abatements

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants had no contractual, equitable, or other right to any sum beyond their gross pay, and the alleged 'abatements' were not contributions but part of the process of fixing pay. No benefit was conferred on the respondents at the appellants' expense, and the claims for restitution and breach of trust/fiduciary duty were plainly and obviously bad in law. The claim was therefore bound to fail and was properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Action struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action
  • No order for further relief