Ian Green v Public Service Commission (Trinidad and Tobago); Ian Green and another v Public Service Commission No 2 (Trinidad and Tobago)

Ian Green v Public Service Commission (Trinidad and Tobago); Ian Green and another v Public Service Commission No 2 (Trinidad and Tobago)

The executive, not the PSC, is responsible for setting qualifications for public office. The respondent was not eligible for promotion as there was no determination by the CFO that his qualifications were equivalent under regulation 8(1)(b). The PSC's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair as it relied...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Ian Green; Appellant: Public Service Commission; Interested Party: Chief Personnel Officer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment restored; respondent's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Promotion in Public Service, Eligibility Criteria, Separation of Powers, Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Statutes
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Employment Law Promotion in Public Service Eligibility Criteria Separation of Powers Natural Justice Judicial Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Green

Respondent

Public Service Commission

Appellant

Chief Personnel Officer

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Service Commission or the executive sets qualifications for public office
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was eligible for promotion under the Fire Service Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the process followed by the PSC was irrational or contrary to natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The executive, not the PSC, is responsible for setting qualifications for public office. The respondent was not eligible for promotion as there was no determination by the CFO that his qualifications were equivalent under regulation 8(1)(b). The PSC's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair as it relied on the absence of such determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment restored; respondent's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal dated 16 December 2022 set aside.
  • Order of the Court of Appeal dated 11 December 2023 remitting damages assessment set aside.