Carlton Powell Applicant v Civil Service Appeals Tribunal Putative 1st Respondent The Chief Officer (Ministry of Sports) Putative 2nd Respondent

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: Hon. Justice Richard Williams
• Judgment Date: 05 August 2016
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2016] CIGC J0805-1
• Docket Number: CAUSE NO. G 97 of 2016
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 05 August 2016

Between:

Carlton Powell

Applicant

and

Civil Service Appeals Tribunal

Putative 1st Respondent

and

The Chief Officer (Ministry of Sports)

Putative 2nd Respondent

[2016] CIGC J0805-1

Before:

Hon. Justice Richard Williams

CAUSE NO. G 97 of 2016

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CIVIL DIVISION

HEADNOTE

Application for leave to apply for judicial review — Ex parte hearing — Adjourning to inter partes leave application and inviting Putative Respondents to attend to enable both parties to make submissions.

Appearances:

The Applicant in person

Transcript of Ex Tempore Ruling

1 At this stage my function is not to determine issues that are properly raised by the affidavit sworn on 2 June 2016 that is before me. The purpose of the requirement for leave on the other hand is to eliminate at an early stage any applications which are frivolous or hopeless and to ensure that the matter only proceeds to a substantive hearing if there is a case fit for consideration. I bear in mind that leave should be granted if on the material available the Court thinks, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting relief.

2 This is a case where there may issues as to alternative remedy and in particular as to delay.

3 Most regrettably the Applicant's attorney has failed to attend Court today to represent him. The Applicant told me that his attorney had contacted him to inform him that he was not going to attend this fixed hearing before the Grand Court as he had a more important case to attend in another court.

4 The failure of an attorney on record to attend the Grand Court, or any court, for a fixed hearing is a breach of his duty to his client and to the Court and is totally unacceptable and amounts to unprofessional conduct. The attorney's conduct is made even more troubling in a leave for judicial review application involving issues of delay and of alternative remedy, especially if the reason for his non-attendance is that relayed to the by the Applicant this morning.

5 I proceed to hear the application this morning there exists a real possibility that leave would not be granted. I have regard to my duty under the Overriding Objective to deal with the application in an expeditious, economical and just way. I do not believe that it would be fair and just for the Applicant if I proceeded to hear this ex parte application today when he has today been “left in the lurch” by his attorney.

6 In addition, I have considered whether I should adjourn this ex-parte application for the Putative Respondents to be present. It has long been established that I have this power as stated by Lord Diplock at 642FIRC v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses [1981] A.C. 617:

‘The application for leave to apply for judicial review is...