The applicant was a Civil Servant seeking judicial review of the Department’s decision to discipline him. The issue was whether he had a contract of employment or merely a relationship with the Crown, regulated under its prerogative powers. There were a number of documents which, together, comprised Mr Nangle’s appointment. There was a letter of appointment which cross referred to other documents which either were enclosed with the letter or were readily available elsewhere.
Held: The question whether there was an intention to create legal relations had to be ascertained objectively, and where the terms of the relationship are to be derived solely from the documents, its answer depends upon the construction of those documents: ‘[I]n our judgment, that the question whether there is an intention to create legal relations is to be ascertained objectively, and where the terms of the relationship are, as here, to be derived solely from the documents, depends upon the construction of those documents. It is possible for a party to believe mistakenly that he is contractually bound to another when in fact he is not; and conversely to believe that he is not when he is. His belief is immaterial. While this remains a subjective belief uncommunicated to the other party, this is plainly correct. But where such a belief is expressed in the documents it must be a question of construction of the documents as a whole what effect should be given to such a statement.’
Civil servants enter into legal relations with the Crown in the form of contracts of employment: ‘In our judgment the use of the word ‘appointment’ is neutral and certainly does not negative an intention to create legal relations. Many contractual relationships of employer and employee are described as appointments’.
Citations:
[1991] ICR 743, [1992] 1 All ER 897
Employment, Contract, Judicial Review
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.392700
