Nicholla Brathwaite-Mundy (Appellant) v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0047

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Nicholla Brathwaite-Mundy

Respondent(s)

Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the appellant’s acting appointment as a teacher was temporary rather than for an indeterminate period? Did the Court of Appeal err in holding or implying that the respondent had lawful authority to transfer the appellant to that appointment?

Facts

This appeal concerns a dispute over the interpretation of the nature and duration of the appellant’s acting appointment as a teacher and the cessation of the appellant’s salary. There is a further issue over whether the respondent had lawful authority to transfer the appellant to that appointment. The appellant is a Special Education Teacher II who was assigned to the Cascade School for the Deaf. By letter dated 9 November 2015, she was informed by the respondent that she was appointed to act as Senior Special Education Teacher (Primary) at the School for Blind Children. The appellant assumed duties at that school from 17 September 2015, was subsequently appointed to act in a higher post, and remained at the school at all material times. On 11 January 2018, the appellant received a letter dated 4 January 2018 purportedly signed by the respondent addressed to the Principal of the Cascade School for the Deaf, reintroducing the appellant at her substantive post of Special Education Teacher II, and directing the Principal to inform the respondent of the date when the appellant resumed duty in that post. The appellant has not resumed duty in Cascade School for the Deaf. The appellant claimed for a declaration that the decision of the respondent to terminate her acting appointment is illegal and unlawful as it contravenes the Teaching Service Commission (Delegation of Powers) Order for the reason that the respondent is delegated the power to appoint persons but not to terminate acting appointments. While proceedings were ongoing, the Teaching Service Commission (“the Commission”) communicated its approval of the appellant acting as Senior Special Education Teacher at the School for Blind Children with effect from the date of her assumption of duty 20 November 2015 until 7 January 2018 by letter dated 15 May 2019. The High Court held in favour of the respondent, who had argued that this was not a matter of termination but a resumption of the status quo in light of the failure of the Director of Personnel Administration (“the DPA”) to approve the appointment. The High Court held that it was made clear in the letter of appointment that that appointment was subject to the DPA’s approval and was therefore conditional. Since the approval never came up to the time of filing the claim, the appointment could not, and did not, take effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appellant's acting appointment was temporary in nature and had lawfully come to an end on 7 January 2018 when the Commission limited its approval to that date. The respondent had not unlawfully terminated the appointment, only the Commission possessed that power. The appellant had never been lawfully transferred to the School for Blind Children, as the Commission had refused to ratify the transfer. This finding undermined the basis for her continued acting appointment at the School for Blind Children. The Court of Appeal concluded that the stoppage of salary from April 2018 was lawful because the appellant had failed to report for duty at her assigned substantive post and was effectively withholding her services. The appellant appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

15 June 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top