Chief Fire Officer and another (Respondents) v Felix-Phillip and others (Appellants) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Chief Fire Officer and another (Respondents) v Felix-Phillip and others (Appellants) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Acting appointments made 'until further notice' are temporary and lawful under Regulation 50, provided their temporary nature is transparent; there is no regulatory requirement to give preference to acting officers for permanent promotion, and the PBS was not irrational or unlawful for not providing such preference.

Citation
[2020] UKPC 12
Parties
Appellants: Felix-Phillip and others; Respondents: Chief Fire Officer and another
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Service Appointments, Acting Appointments, Promotion Procedures, Equality of Treatment
Administrative Law Employment Law Constitutional Law Public Service Appointments Acting Appointments Promotion Procedures Equality of Treatment

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felix-Phillip and others

Appellants

Chief Fire Officer and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acting appointments made 'until further notice' are permanent or temporary under Regulation 50 of the PSCR
  2. 2 Whether the points-based system (PBS) for promotion was irrational, unfair, or contrary to regulations, specifically regarding preference for acting officers

Ratio Decidendi

Acting appointments made 'until further notice' are temporary and lawful under Regulation 50, provided their temporary nature is transparent; there is no regulatory requirement to give preference to acting officers for permanent promotion, and the PBS was not irrational or unlawful for not providing such preference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed