Ex-soldier to pursue claim for gratuity, salary arrears

AN ex-solder will be allowed to pursue his claim over unpaid gratuity and salary arrears after he resigned from the Defence Force in 2021.

Devin Reid sued the Attorney General for his benefits in a constitutional claim which the State resisted, arguing it was an abuse of the court’s process. Attorneys for the State contended Reid had a myriad of alternative remedies including bringing a claim for judicial review or one for an ordinary breach of contract or breach of statutory duty.

Justice Karen Reid disagreed. In a ruling on the State’s application to strike out Reid’s claim, the judge said there was insufficient material before her to come to the finding that the former lance corporal had an effective alternative remedy.

“In the circumstances, I find that the claimant’s claim is not an abuse of process as there are no parallel remedies available to the claimant for redress.”

The case is expected to come up for a hearing on April 30.

Reid enlisted as a soldier in November 2009. When he resigned, after being granted a discharge from service, he had accumulated 12 years and 28 days of coloured service. Colour service is considered the minimum service a soldier must complete to be eligible for a pension.

He claimed after his retirement, he was entitled to $120,000 in gratuity, a refund of his pension contributions which amounted to $112,000 and arrears of salary of $60,000 since the Defence Force received a four per cent increase in 2022 for the period 2014 to 2016 and 2017 to 2019.

Reid’s claim also said there was a delay in paying his December 2021 salary, the mortgage on his home fell into arrears and his vehicle was seized and sold by the bank which he still owes.

In her ruling, Justice Reid pointed out that based on the legal authorities involving the military, Reid could not pursue a breach of statutory duty or breach of contract claim.

“It appears to be the very clear position in law that military personnel cannot bring claims in contract in respect of their service,” she said.

She added, “ In my view, given the consistently hands-off approach of the courts to entertaining ordinary civil actions in respect of the service of the military personnel, it appears to me that an ordinary claim for breach of statutory duty may not be entertained.”

However, she noted she was not prepared to make any definitive finding without more in-depth and robust arguments on the issue after evidence was led.

Reid was represented by Ronald Simon while the State was represented by Trisha Ramlogan, Felisha Villaruel, Kristyn Lewis and Murvani Ojah-Maharaj.