Wetherill & Ors v Birmingham City Council

Wetherill & Ors v Birmingham City Council

The Council was entitled to unilaterally change the car user allowance scheme from a vehicle-specific to a duties-specific basis, provided proper notice and transitional arrangements were made. The breach occurred in April 1993 when the Council failed to provide adequate transitional provisions, but this did not constitute a continuing breach entitling claimants to damages for the period after 3 April 1998. The Council's defence was not an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Wetherill & Others; Defendant/appellant: Birmingham City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of 23 August 2006 set aside.
Legal Topics
Variation of Employment Contracts, Car User Allowances, Implied Terms, Abuse of Process, Transitional Arrangements
Employment Law Contract Law Variation of Employment Contracts Car User Allowances Implied Terms Abuse of Process Transitional Arrangements

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wetherill & Others

Claimants/respondents

Birmingham City Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's withdrawal of Band 3 car user allowance constituted a continuing breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the Council could unilaterally vary the terms of car user allowance
  3. 3 Whether proper notice and transitional arrangements were required

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was entitled to unilaterally change the car user allowance scheme from a vehicle-specific to a duties-specific basis, provided proper notice and transitional arrangements were made. The breach occurred in April 1993 when the Council failed to provide adequate transitional provisions, but this did not constitute a continuing breach entitling claimants to damages for the period after 3 April 1998. The Council's defence was not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of 23 August 2006 set aside.

Orders

  • Order of 23 August 2006 set aside.
  • No damages awarded for period after 3 April 1998.