Appeal Court: Retired military volunteer must be paid

Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh. - Photo courtesy Information Division

THE Court of Appeal has overturned a 2023 High Court ruling and ordered the State to pay a retired Coast Guard volunteer $346,836.05 for unpaid salary adjustments linked to his post-retirement service.

Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh and Justices of Appeal James Aboud and Ricky Rahim held that David Tannis was contractually entitled to revised rates of pay that were later negotiated for established Defence Force ranks, even though those increases were finalised after his volunteer service ended.

Rahim, who wrote the unanimous decision delivered on November 14, also ruled that an implied contractual term tied his remuneration to increases granted to comparable ranks in the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (TTDF), consistent with a Cabinet-approved methodology dating back to 1980.

Tannis served as a marine surveyor in the Volunteer Defence Force between May 24, 2004, and May 23, 2012, under an engagement approved by Cabinet and administered through the Ministry of National Security. His pay had been aligned to that of a petty officer and later a chief petty officer, but he only received adjustments for the 2005–2007 period. Pay increases for 2008–2010 and 2011–2013 were approved by Legal Notices 92 and 93 of 2016, four years after his contract ended.

Justice Betsy Ann Lambert-Peterson had dismissed his claim at an undefended trial, finding no express or implied term guaranteeing retroactive increases. In its judgment, the Appeal Court found the trial judge “plainly wrong,” noting that the state’s failure to file a defence, provide disclosure, or challenge key evidence left Tannis at a significant disadvantage. The court added that the 1980 Cabinet Minute created a continuing methodology linking volunteer pay to TTDF rates and that it would have been obvious to both parties that increases for established ranks should flow to volunteers doing comparable work.

While the court agreed there was no express term to suggest that Tannis would benefit from subsequent increases in his rate of pay, Rahim said a term could be implied from custom and practice. In Tannis’ case, he pointed to the Cabinet Minute.

“The Cabinet was clearly stating that from January 1980, the mechanism for applying rates of pay of the Volunteer Defence Force was that of applying the same rates as those for comparable members of the Defence Force.

“In this case, had the trial judge incisively evaluated the appellant’s written and oral evidence she would have come to the conclusion that it was obvious to the notional officious bystander and went without saying that, if asked, the parties would have said of course for the contract to work (in a fair and equitable manner as contemplated by Cabinet who set the methodology), the appellant would benefit from concomitant pay increases to the established ranks as negotiated from time to time when he was a volunteer.

“It is obvious from this that the judge fell into error in finding that the rate applicable to the appellant when he was contracted applied to his entire contractual period at a fixed rate in light of the Cabinet decision.

“It follows that the implication of the term means that the appellant is entitled to the comparable rates for the period that he was under contract. It does not matter, in the unique factual circumstances of this appeal, that these rates of pay were belatedly fixed after his contract came to an end.”

Rahim also pointed out that another volunteer had previously been paid on the same basis after the state entered a consent order, which was not explained or refuted by the state.

While rejecting Tannis’ request for exemplary damages, the court awarded general damages of $346,836.05 for breach of contract, interest at 2.5 per cent per year from June 16, 2016. The Attorney General was ordered to pay the prescribed costs of the claim in the High Court based on the value of the claim, with interest.

Attorneys Arden Williams, Anthony Moore and Mariah Ramrattan represented Tannis while Sanjiv Lalla and Brent James represented the AG and Chief of Defence Staff.