The claimant had been employed by the respondent, and earned a pension. She challenged legislation which appeared to operate retrospectively to reduce that pension. The respondent argued that the amount agreed to be paid exceeded the maximum statutory amount, and that a payment made upon termination was not to an officer holding a position.
Held: The promise of payment of a retirement gratuity was a term or condition of the contract appointing her to hold office as a school cleaner. It was a part of her employment package. That her contract was terminating did not mean it was not paid to her as a person holding office. Retrospectivity which appeared to take away a right should only be read from the clearest of words.
Judges:
Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Mummery The President
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 416, Times 21-Apr-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara PC 7-Oct-1982
(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue . .
Cited – Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board HL 22-Oct-1987
The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Employment
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180454