Privy Council decision touching on the issue of reinstatement of unlawfully dismissed public service officer

I am grateful to a colleague for bringing to my attention the Privy Council decision of Astley McLaughlin v Governor of Cayman Islands. This decision was delivered in July 2007. I have added to the link to this decision under Useful links. In summary, the Privy Council held that it was reasonable for the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands to decline to order reinstatement of Dr. Astley McLaughlin, a government employee who had been wrongly dismissed. This case is relevant to the litigation now being pursued by Lackston Robinson to be reinstated in the Attorney General's Department of Jamaica. Among the reasons cited by the Prime Minister for firing the Public Service Commission was it's alleged failure to reinstate Lackston Robinson following the Supreme Court's quashing of the PSC's decision to retire Lackston in the public interest. I set out some relevant extracts from the McLaughlin case below.




In 1998, Dr. McLaughlin was terminated from his position in the government service of the Cayman Islands. The Courts ultimately held that his dismissal was unlawful, because of a failure on the part of the Governor to observe certain legal procedures, including natural justice. Dr. McLaughlin also petitioned the courts to be reinstated to the office which he held prior to the dismissal, or to "an alternative suitable office, with full back pay and benefits, including seniority for pension and other purposes>"

The Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands in addressing the issue of reinstatement, held as follows:

The appellant has sought relief that he be reinstated in the office which he held at the time of his retirement. Mr Hall-Jones submitted that courts in judicial review proceedings are loath to order the reinstatement of employees, as such an order borders on the usurpation of the powers of the decision maker, and because of the practical problems which such an order would present. For this proposition he relied on Lewis, Judicial Remedies in Public Law, 2nd ed., para 11-021, (2000). The appellant has not been in the public service for approximately four years. We have no knowledge of the state of the requirements of the public service for personnel and in what capacities, and, for no other reason, we do not consider reinstatement as an appropriate remedy.


At paragraph 18 of its judgment, the Privy Council endorsed the Court of Appeal's approach, holding that:


It was reasonable for the first Court of Appeal to decline to order that Dr McLaughlin be restored, after a delay of nearly four years, to the specific office he had held in December 1998.


Ultimately, the Privy Council held that Dr. McLaughlin was entitled to a proper assessment of damages from the date of the unlawful termination. [The Privy Council otherwise overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, because of an error of law which is not germane to the question of reinstatement].