The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue v Finbar Boland and 15 others (Trinidad and Tobago)

The Public Service Commission Regulations create separate regimes for substantive appointments, prelude acting appointments and non-prelude acting appointments. A professional accounting qualification is required for substantive and prelude acting appointment as Field Auditor III, but not for non-prelude acting appointment under regulation 26. A judicial review claim also requires a causal link between the alleged legal error and the challenged decision. Where the evidence shows that the alleged error did not cause the decision, the claim fails. Declaratory relief is generally unnecessary where no unlawfulness has been found and the judgment itself sufficiently clarifies the legal position.

Sixteen Inland Revenue auditors sought judicial review of the alleged failure to recommend them for non-prelude acting appointments as Field Auditor III. They also sought declarations concerning eligibility, asserting that a professional accounting qualification was not required. The High Court found a breach of natural justice, declared that the auditors were eligible to act and to be promoted, and ordered compensation to be assessed. The Court of Appeal treated the qualification requirement as applying to appointments under regulation 26 as well as to substantive and prelude appointments. The appeal concerned the correct distinction between those appointment regimes and whether declaratory relief should be granted.

Appeal dismissed. The Board held that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was wrong, but that the claim nevertheless failed on the evidence.

1. The Public Service Commission Regulations establish distinct regimes for substantive appointments, acting appointments as a prelude to substantive appointment, and purely temporary non-prelude acting appointments. The criteria applicable to substantive and prelude appointments do not automatically apply to non-prelude acting appointments.
2. The Court of Appeal was correct to treat the 1991 job specification as a specification under regulation 18(4). A professional accounting qualification was therefore required for substantive appointment and for prelude acting appointment under regulations 18 and 24. It was not required for non-prelude acting appointment under regulation 26.
3. The distinction was required by Ramoutar v Commissioner of Prisons [2012] UKPC 29. Its first reason, namely that permanent and prelude acting criteria do not govern purely acting stand-in appointments, formed part of the ratio and was binding. The present job specification differed from that in Ramoutar, but that difference did not justify treating the regulation 26 regime as importing the qualification threshold.
4. The appellants alleged that they had been unlawfully passed over because of a mistaken qualification requirement. The unchallenged evidence showed that this was not the reason for the decisions. It also showed good reasons for the appointments and recommendations about which the appellants complained. The claim of unlawfulness therefore failed.
5. A declaration may be appropriate where illegality has been found but coercive relief is unsuitable, as explained in R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2015] UKSC 51; [2015] 1 WLR 3575. Here there was no finding of unlawfulness. The Board’s judgment sufficiently clarified the law, and no declaration was made.

• Privy Council: In [2023] UKPC 27, the Board dismissed the appeal, corrected the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, and declined to grant declaratory relief.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: Judgment given on 7 September 2020 in two appeals. The Court treated the professional qualification as a specification for substantive and prelude appointments and incorrectly extended that threshold to non-prelude acting appointments.
• High Court: Kangaloo J gave judgment on 15 September 2015, finding a breach of natural justice, declaring the auditors eligible to act and to be promoted, and directing assessment of monetary compensation.