This document discusses key principles of administrative law in the Caribbean context. It covers several topics: 1) Grounds for judicial review including jurisdiction, illegality, irrationality, and procedural fairness. 2) Errors of law made by public authorities including misinterpretation of statutes and failure to comply with statutory requirements. 3) How public authorities exercise discretionary powers including the need for decisions to be reasonable and not fettered or made in bad faith. 4) Standards of review applied by courts, particularly Wednesbury unreasonableness and the increasing use of proportionality.

1. Administrative Law
3/5/2014
1

2.  Barbados AJA s 4; TT JRA s 5(3)
 Public law not about rights per se but rather about
wrongs/misuses of public power (AG St Christopher v
Reynolds: retired inspector of Police detained unlawfully,
no grounds for review)
 Must show:
 Person/body under legal duty to act a certain way
 Decision made was lawful
 Decision not UV
 1) Jurisdiction
 Where do powers come from (discretionary powers
court may second guess)
 Scope of the powers
 Have they acted illegally (UV, irrational, proportionate)
 Additional grounds:
 Deprivation of legitimate expectation
 Absentee of statutory basis
3/5/2014
2

3.  B. Errors of law: AJA 4(j); JRA 5(3)(j)
 1) Introduction
 JR=legality of decision
 Error in law amounts to:
Purporting a non existent law (Stanislaus v AGTT_
magistrate prescribing a sentence that did not exist in law 5
years instead of 3)
 Misinterpretation of statute
 Legal basis upon which decision was made
 2) Statutory interpretation
 Check what the law is
 Interpret the scope
 Interpret application (Cable Bahamas v PUC: PUC to establish
standard of technology to use not the type)
 3) Service Commissions:
 Subject to review

3/5/2014
3

4.  4) Fundamental rights and freedoms
 Must consider whether there is an infringement on
rights
 Must distinguish between substantive errors and
procedural for the purposes of due process (Ali v AGTT)
 5) Mistaken view of law
 Error on the face of it court may require
 Error on a complaint or indictment does not amount to an
error in law and is not a ground for JR (Andrews v DPP –
mistaken view of law not a ground for review)
 6) Interim Relief
 Judge makes error in granting relief where an issue exist
(Belize Water services v AG – judge erred in law in holding
that there was an arguable case)
 7) Reasons: will be dealt with later on
 C. Error of fact
 1) Errors of law and facts:
3/5/2014
4

5. Considers jurisdiction and form as bases of quashing
decision of PA because:
 Misunderstanding of legal terms by the PA in making
decision
 Incorrectly evaluate facts in determining its power
 Re Doyll Insurance Company – registrar interpreted
the law wrongly and there was no causal link between
behaviour and the purported consequential loss.
 2) no evidential basis – error of law/fact
no factual basis for decisions made by the PA (Bovell v
COP –no evidence to support the decisions made
neither in law or reasoning).
 D) Subjectivity
 Manner in which discretion is exercised:
 Did it consider the relevant matters
 Was it reasonable and fair (usually affects areas where
licenses are granted)

3/5/2014
5

6. 
Burroughes v Katwaroo: COP having wide discretion to revoke gun
licenses if he thinks fit – must include reasonability)
 E) Non compliance with statutory requirement
 PA did not confer with statute that conferred power equal
unlawful decision
 Cases:
 Arawak trustee Co Ltd v Holden: Bank inspector has
statutory authority to inspect personal and confidential files
to facilitate the performance of his function not for mere
suspicion
 Mossell Ltd v Office of Utilities Regulation: Minister operated
outside the scope of his power when it issued a specific instead
of general direction regarding rates fixing.
F) Mandatory/Directory
Mandatory requirement: non observance leads to invalidity
of the action and result in it being void (directory is the
opposite)
3/5/2014
6

7.  1) Old approach
 Old approach was rigid and kept in line with the procedure
 Whether the requirement that was not complied with was
mandatory or directory
 Where legislation is not explicit courts decide considering:
 Statutory intention(construction of statute)
 Holding condition ineffective or rigid
 Importance of the condition
 Prejudice of rights, public interest
 Cases:
 Barrow v Hoyte: the effect of statute where a Christian
mission is to hold meetings annually_ deemed
mandatory
 Biggs v COP: minister’s duty to lay SI before
parliament for negative resolution-mandatory
3/5/2014
7

8.  2) Modern approach:
 Whether the statutory requirements were
mandatory/directory
 Court now exercises discretionary element because
 Statutory requirement not intended to fetter the purpose of
the law.
 Charles v JLC: whether or not adhering to time limits for
disciplinary action fetter the purpose of investigations.
(Wang case was employed-avoid the use of rigid classification
such as mandatory/directory consider whether legislature
intended that the legislation be complied with; if so, did they
intend that a failure to adhere to time to deprive the
legislature from making a decision)
 2) Retention of Discretion
 A) Introduction
 Discretion a legal power not a duty
 Legislation confers the power
3/5/2014
8

9.  Consideration must be given to
Nature of discretion
 Presumed intention of parliament
 Who should exercise the power
 How should it be exercised? (reasonably, good faith,
proper grounds, must not be abused) (EXP
Thompson: though cabinet exercise its power it must
be done discretionary)
 PA does not have unfettered discretion
 Court still maintains a reluctance to interfere with policy
providing the above things are realized.
 B) retention of discretion
 1. General
 Discretion conferred on PA by: statute, usually
contains a proviso
3/5/2014
9
 Discretion must be exercised in an open mind


10.  Cases:
Bahadur v AG TT: license suspended as a result of
manslaughter charge. Upheld, no need for oral
hearing, act empowered and provide reason.
 Bahamas Air Traffic union v Bahamas government:
suspending of air traffic controllers for investigation
purpose was unlawful and the PS was unreasonable
and arbitrary in his decision
 2) Constitutionality of Discretion:
 Presumption: legislation confers discretion and a
decision may amount to going against the constitution
(Bellot v AG Dominica: refusing permission for a
march fell within the discretion of the minister who
was responsible for public order-not necessarily
unconstitutional

 3) FA license
3/5/2014
10

11. 

Burroughs v Katwaroo: revocation of FA license “if he
thinks fit” wide discretion that must be administered
within reason
Narayinsingh v COP TT: revocation on the basis of
house search…unfair and outside of the scope of the
power that discretion endowed, oral hearing not
necessary however written procedure acceptable
 Difference between the two cases:
Katwaroo employed an objective test and court did not
wish to trample on powers of COP
 Naraysingh: reasoning was not sufficient fair and
without evidence
 4) Liquor license
 Usually policy based but court examines the exercising of
the powers on the basis of the impact of the livelihood of
the applicant or legitimate interest of the holder.

3/5/2014
11

12.  (Butler & Sands v Licensing authority: license refused
because shares was transferred – unlawful because of
misinterpreting the power of the statute.
 5 )Immigration
 Powers to expel or refuse entry (must exercise within
reason done not be arbitrary (ExP Shafer: VP was
revoked , court upheld and said the law intended that any
permit can be revoke by the IO extension the Minister
(Criticism: ventose does not agree-indicating that it is
wrong precedence as decisions of the PA is not absolute
and the court took a restrictive approach)
 6 ) Telecommunication:
 concerns the issuing of license and the exercise in
discretion (Digecell Ltd V Telecom Regulations –unfair
and inconsistent terms in the laying of applications for
license…deemed unreasonable and inconsistent)
3/5/2014
12

13.  7) Environmental : same issues of when exercising
discretion must not be arbitrary, must be within reason.
(fisherman & Friends case: EMA was not arbitrary nor did
not act illegal in issuing license)
 C) Abdication
 Per/Pa with authority to make decision cannot abdicate
there responsibility (Bell v COP: COP was found not to
have abdicate his responsibility when he forwarded appeal
to GG, appeal was laid wrongly )
 D) delegation:
 PA cannot delegate its powers unless
 There is a provision for it
 Reasonable implication of circumstances
 Ramdatt v PSAB: COP delegation of responsibility to
the assistant commissioner was lawfully, mode of
executing duty of the PSC
 3) Abuse of power:
3/5/2014
13

14.  a. Introduction
 PA must not fetter discretion
 Must not act in bad faith, but consider all relevant
consideration
 Must exercise discretion reasonably
 b. Fettering discretion
 Sticking to policy with no flexibility, no independent
judgement – too much rigidity (granting a lic should be
examined on its own merits)
 Maharaj v Statutory Service commission: decision to
appoint an officer was fettered by the objection of the
PM without any objective reasoning
 Campbell v COP TT: applicant seeks promotion says
points system fettered discretion of COP and goes
against the regulations, court did not agree
3/5/2014
14

15.  Determining whether decision fettered:
Read and interpret the law
 What is the scope of the power
 What is the object of the law
 How far did the decision go (check fact pattern)
 c. Improper purpose
 Statutory power must be exercised for the purpose for
which it was intended
 Determining general purpose:
 Interpret statute (discern scope, power purpose,
objective)
 Glean from the facts the purpose of the particular
exercise
 Construe the power
 How was the power used

3/5/2014
15

16. Did it fall within the scope
 Not allowed to operate UV
 Francois v AG St Lucia: parliament did not act
improper in the guaranteeing of a refinancing loan as
it fell with capital and recurrent expenditure
 Crutchfield, Re Belize: Immigration on the face of it
did not operate on improper purpose but rather for a
duality of purpose where the dominant purpose must
be determined in an deportation case
 d. Bad faith
 Must exercise good faith(reasoning must be legitimate)
 Bad faith (acting on unreasonable grounds) includes:
dishonesty, fraud, intention to spite
 Pleadings must be specific and must be proven
(evidentiary base)

3/5/2014
16

17. Andrews v DPP: DPP did not act in bad faith to
discontinue a rape case…it amounted to an abuse of
process (a busybody)
 Ag St Lucia v Kenny Anthony:
court found that
cabinet had acted in bad faith in including a dwelling
house a description among a villa that they had
granted a tax exemption, belonging to a sitting
minister-tampering with the administration of justice.
 e. Irrelevant Consideration (Barbados AJA s 4(g); TT JRA s5(3)(g)
 Considering materials that ought not impact the
decision and has no bearing on the subject matter
(Astephan v AG Dominica-consideration given to treaty
for trading in OECs before granting an import licence
when Dominica had not signed on to it)
 Stepping outside of the powers conferred (Texaco
Caribbean v Minister: law was correct, included relevant
3/5/2014
17
consideration


18.  Tutorial 21.2.13-case study
 4 Standard of review
 a. Introduction
 Court must be mindful of its role
 Having a pragmatic approach in ensuring
fairness/rationality in the review
 b. Wednesbury reasonableness
 Means: decision was unreasonable when it was so
absurd that no reasonable authority could have come to
that conclusion (Lord Dennning – Council of Civil
Service Union v Minister of the Public Service)
 Unreasonableness – established as an independent head
of wrong doing
 Wednesbury is wide test
 Requires overwhelming evidence
 Limbs include irrelevant consideration, unreasonableness
(Bishop v HM corner – coroner was not unreasonable to draw
the conclusion of the decease that he did as his findings are
based on facts)
3/5/2014
18

19.  c. Proportionality
 Measures must not be more than is necessary to get the





3/5/2014
desired result
Usually used in relation to human rights (Defreitas –
locus for proportionality test: legislative objective,
measure to achieve that and means used to impair right
must not be no more than is necessary)
Element of the test was missing (R v Oakes introduce the
balance of the interest of society and the
individuals/groups)
Wednesdbury took blows from this because some deems
that test to be too narrow and this one more expansive
(Benjamin v AG Antigua)
Caribbean courts have applied Wednesbury test with a
degree of proportionality
Criticism of Wednesbury: scope not expansive because
it only apply when the decision was absurd and this gave
undue deference to PA to the detriment of persons
whose rights were implicated
19

20.  Proportionality practiced in the Caribbean (Northern
Jamaican Conservation v Natural Resources
Conservation Authority- proportionality is more
refined technique…but not a separate ground and is
used in addition with other admin law rules without
trespassing in the domain of the executive)
3/5/2014
20