CONFIDENTIAL
from compensation proposals.
But compensation proposals
are not designed for a quick profit, but to recompense for a real or anticipated loss.
5.
There are, however, arguments against such a course:
(a) past compensation schemes have calculated compensation on the basis of pensionable service; no distinction has been made between service after an officer has been admitted to the pensionable establishment and service which is bought back. (No such distinction is made under the UK pension scheme in cases when officers are compensated for a premature termination of career). proposal therefore constitutes a significant departure from (One answer to this past colonial and current UK practice.
The
is that, unlike the Hong Kong case, the prospect of the loss of career was not advertised 12 years in advance and before the officers had bought back service.)
(b) from past practice, contract officers who opt for pensionable terms and were accepted into HMOCS had a reasonable expectancy that their compensation would be based on pensionable service with no exceptions made for bought back service; it may be asserted that arguments about knowledge of the limitation of career prospects are irrelevant because the Hong Kong Government continued to allow them the pensions benefit of pensionable service and because the UK Government continued to allow them to become members of HMOCS with all the traditional benefits that
promised.
it
(c) not only would this proposal run counter to reasonable expectations, but if applied to any officer who opted between 30 June 1987 and the date it is announced, would constitute a change in past practice which was intended to have effect retro actively; officers could complain that they had been misled in taking a decision to opt for pensionable terms, a decision which it may be alleged they took in the reasonable belief that they could
JUDADE/7
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.