The Union challenged by way of judicial review proposed changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, saying that it removed accrued rights.
Held: The benefits under the scheme were fully legal entitlements and were protected. They were an established and declared administrative practice. An amendment could only be made with the consent of the Union, and therefore the amendments were declared invalid. The subjective policy intent of the Secretary of State or of those in his or her department is irrelevant to the question of interpretation before the court.
Judges:
Sales J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 1027 (Admin), [2010] WLR (D) 117, [2010] ACD 73, [2010] ICR 1198, [2010] Pens LR 211
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department QBD 29-Aug-2014
The claimant challenged fines imposed on him after three illegal immigrants were found to have hidden in his lorry in the immigration control zone at Dunkirk. The 1999 At was to have been amended by the 2002 Act, and the implementation was by the . .
See Also – Public and Commercial Services Union and Others v The Minister for The Civil Service Admn 10-Aug-2011
Application for judicial review of a decision by the Defendant whereby he introduced a scheme under section 1 of the 1972 Act amending the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (‘CSCS’), and thereby reducing the benefits paid to scheme members on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.412277
