Foster v Eastbourne Borough Council & Anor

Foster v Eastbourne Borough Council & Anor

The Council's refusal to award added years was lawful because the appellant's employment was artificially prolonged by a void agreement for the sole purpose of making him eligible for benefits, which was outside the scope and purpose of the 2000 Regulations. To allow an award would be to permit the fruits of an unlawful arrangement, which public law does not allow.

Parties
Appellant: James Foster; 1st Respondent: Eastbourne Borough Council; 2nd Respondent: Peter Arkell (District Auditor)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires Contracts, Local Government Pensions, Judicial Review, Redundancy, Discretionary Compensation, Abuse of Process
Administrative Law Employment Law Public Law Ultra Vires Contracts Local Government Pensions Judicial Review Redundancy Discretionary Compensation +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Foster

Appellant

Eastbourne Borough Council

1st Respondent

Peter Arkell (District Auditor)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's refusal to award added years under Regulation 8 of the 2000 Regulations was lawful
  2. 2 Whether it was an abuse of process to raise the lawfulness of the award at this stage
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was eligible for an award under the 2000 Regulations despite the void Compromise Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's refusal to award added years was lawful because the appellant's employment was artificially prolonged by a void agreement for the sole purpose of making him eligible for benefits, which was outside the scope and purpose of the 2000 Regulations. To allow an award would be to permit the fruits of an unlawful arrangement, which public law does not allow.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Any hearing into costs and consequential orders adjourned for 14 days unless agreement is reached