The curious incident of the settlement of the Robbins claim

There is something curious about the reported settlement of the legal action brought by Olly Robbins against the United Kingdom government in respect of his sacking.

The curious thing was that Robbins appears to have brought his legal action as a judicial review. To bring a claim by this procedure, rather than as a straight damages claim under contract and/or employment law, was unusual.

A judicial review can include a claim for damages, and this claim seems to have included such a claim for damages, but the damages claim did not feature in any of the public statements of those involved.

It is a sufficiently unusual way of bringing such a claim that some comment seems appropriate.

*

A judicial review at the High Court will assess the legality of a government action.

Attaching a damages claim is rare. Usually judicial reviews do not involve any dispute of evidence, or discovery/disclosure of documents, or cross-examination.

Judicial reviews are normally straight assessments of government actions as questions of law.

Judicial reviews are not thereby well-geared for damages claims where there are (or might be) messy disputes of evidence or disclosure/discovery of documents. They can be adapted to do so, but normally such claims take the usual route of a claim for damages at a tribunal or a court.

*

But in this case, an application for judicial review worked perfectly as a litigation tactic.

A quashing order of the then Prime Minister’s sacking of Robbins would likely render the sacking a nullity.

And if the sacking was a legal nullity it had no legal effect.

And if the sacking had no legal effect, then presumably Robbins would still be an employee and would be owed a whopping amount in backpay. A damages claim may be pleaded in the alternative, but the likely direct effect of a quashing order would have the same overall financial effect.

Given this was a decision at a high constitutional level, with the then Prime Minister presumably believing he was exercising some prerogative power when sacking Robbins (rather than it being a straight employment law or contract law issue) then a judicial review makes constitutional sense, as well as being a fine litigation tactic.

*

Now let’s look at the public statements.

In the press release announcing the application for judicial review, Robbins’ trade union (and disclosure – also my former union when a civil service lawyer) said:

“A point of principle is at stake, which affects all FDA members. It damages the core values of a professional and impartial civil service if its most senior officials can be dismissed on a Prime Ministerial whim, without even the semblance of a fair process or considered understanding of the core issue.

“Olly’s submission to the Court is that:

• “The Prime Minister has asserted publicly that it was his decision to dismiss Olly, however the Prime Minister has no statutory authority to dismiss the Head of the Diplomatic Service;

• “Not only was there no fair procedure involved in his dismissal, there was no process at all; and
• “Insofar as Olly has been given reasons for his dismissal, they are irrational. Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to. The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome. This position was confirmed in a letter of 16 September 2025 that was signed by the Foreign Secretary, using text both drafted and approved by No.10.

All good judicial review stuff.

Robbins is then quoted as saying:

“I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the Prime Minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family.

“Instead, I now have to ask the Courts to determine that the Prime Minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them.”

Again, good judicial review stuff.

*

You will see the stated aim of both Robbins and his union was not an award of money, but a quashing order.

Such a quashing order of the High Court would, if granted, mean that the then Prime Minister acted unlawfully in the sacking of Robbins.

It would seem that the government did not want to risk such a result.

And so the government bought off the claim.

This application for judicial review was thereby a savvy way of putting immediate pressure on the government to pay out a lot of money to settle a claim.

It was an overall clever legal strategy, as well as a clever tactic.

*

The government is reported as saying about the settlement (in what was probably an agreed statement):

“Sir Oliver Robbins KCMG CB has had a distinguished public service career over three decades, including most recently as permanent under-secretary at FCDO, as well as previously as the prime minister’s Europe adviser, second permanent secretary at the Home Office and as deputy national security adviser.

“The Government has reached a settlement with Sir Oliver following his dismissal.

“We will not be commenting further on HR matters.”

This makes it sound like a mere employment or contract law issue.

*

The head of the union is, in turn, reported as saying (in what was certainly not an agreed statement):

“This settlement may bring an end to the Judicial Review proceedings, but this whole unprecedented affair has damaged the bond of trust between civil servants and ministers, which is essential to the effective running of government.

“The scapegoating of Sir Oliver, to mask the misjudgement of the previous prime minister, marked one of the lowest points in the recent history of civil service-ministerial relations – which is quite the feat.

“We urge the government to clarify quickly the issues raised by this affair over ministerial involvement in the vetting process.”

*

That key phrase again:

“…to mask the misjudgement of the previous prime minister…”

*

And the money?

As the Guardian deftly report:

“The government will ultimately have to publish how much it has given Robbins in a settlement, which is believed to be six figures but not as much as the record £860,000 given to former cabinet secretary Chris Wormald after he was forced out by Starmer after just a year in post.”

That is a lot of money – a lot of taxpayers’ money – to settle a claim.

*

There is no admission of illegality in the government’s reported statement.

The government seems thereby to have settled this without any admission of liability.

And interestingly, there is no reference in any public statement – by the government or by Robbins or by the union – to any payment of money, either as backpay or damages.

*

Somebody within government would have to agree and authorise a huge settlement to close this claim down without any admission of liability regarding the former prime minister.

At some point the government is likely to have to disclose the amount settled and who authorised it – and perhaps why.

One would like to know what the relevant accounting officer thought about such a payment.

For to authorise a high settlement amount would be a rather significant decision.

And all, in the words of the FDA leader, “to mask the misjudgement of the previous prime minister”.