However, the principles of administrative law do not in themselves create an additional contractual financial obligation, and a duty imposed on the authority by virtue of public law should not be turned into an additional financial contractual obligation for the benefit of the service provider, without an appropriate legal or contractual source.
Indeed, the extension order binds the plaintiff as the direct employer of its employees, and its provisions may be considered part of their employment contract. However, there is no general rule in the law according to which a local authority, as a service customer, is obligated to update the contract or ensure the profitability of the supplier following these legislative changes.
Such a financial obligation by the defendant towards the plaintiff can be based solely on an explicit provision in the tender or in the specific engagement contract between the parties. In the absence of such an explicit contractual anchor, it is not possible to impose on the defendant a duty to pay or indemnify for costs created by virtue of the expansion order.
In these circumstances, I have not found that the defendant's conduct constitutes a breach of the duty of good faith or the duty of fairness imposed on it as a public authority.
- A financial commitment on behalf of a local council requires, in accordance with section 193 of the Local Councils Order (A), 5711-1950, the signatures of the head of the council and the treasurer of the council next to the seal of the council. These statutory requirements constitute a material prerequisite without which the authority's undertaking is invalid, since they are intended to curb the irresponsible use of public funds and to create certainty regarding the validity of an agreement with a local authority (Civil Case (Central District) 52636-06-14 Delta Development, Investments and Trade (1995) Ltd. Oranit Local Council (February 6,2022)).
This determination is consistent with the clarification of the defendant treasurer in the minutes of the hearing dated 11/09/2023, according to which the security officer at the time, was solely responsible for security matters and the approval of the number of work hours actually performed, and was not authorized to set or update rates.