grounds for review

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