Streeter v Immigration Bd

• Jurisdiction: Cayman Islands
• Judge: (Smellie, C.J.)
• Judgment Date: 08 December 1998
• Court: Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
• Date: 08 December 1998

Grand Court

(Smellie, C.J.)

STREETER and K. COAST DEVELOPMENT

and

IMMIGRATION BOARD and GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL

R.D. Alberga, Q.C., G.W. Hampson and Ms. D.L. Lumsden for the applicant;

S.W. Bulgin, Solicitor General, and Ms. J. Wilson, Crown Counsel, for the respondents.

Cases cited:

(1) -Associated Provncl. Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223; [1947] 2 All E.R. 680.

(2) -Compagnie Fin. & Comm. du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co.ELR(1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55; 52 L.J.Q.B. 181, followed.

(3) -O”Reilly v. Mackman, [1983] 2 A.C. 237; [1982] 3 All E.R. 1124, dicta of Lord Diplock applied.

(4) -R. v. Foreign & Commonwealth Secy., ex p. World Dev. Movement Ltd., [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386; [1995] 1 All E.R. 611.

(5) -R. v. Inland Rev. Commrs., ex p. Taylor, UNK[1989] 1 All E.R. 906; [1988] S.T.C. 832, applied.

Legislation construed:

Grand Court Rules, O.24, r.2:

‘(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and of rule 4, the parties to an action between whom pleadings are closed must make discovery by exchanging lists of documents and, accordingly, each party must, within 14 days after pleadings in the action are deemed closed as between him and any other party, make and serve on that other party a list of documents which are or have been in his possession, custody or power relating to any matter in question between them in the action.’

Administrative Law-judicial review-discovery-under Grand Court Rules, O.24, parties have same duty as in other proceedings to disclose all documents necessary to assist argument and ensure fair disposal of issues-where reasonableness of administrative decision disputed, includes all documents relating to factors considered-counsel to ensure complete discovery given

The applicant applied for judicial review of the first respondent”s decision to revoke his work permit.

The applicant was convicted of theft from his employer. The Immigration Board, in response, decided to revoke his work permit. His appeal to the Governor in Council failed. He was then given leave to bring judicial review proceedings and sought the court”s directions as to the respondents” duty to give discovery.

Held, giving the following directions:

(1) Whilst the scope of discovery in judicial review proceedings was limited, since they did not constitute an appeal on the merits of the case and rarely required findings of fact to be made, the court nevertheless had a discretion to order discovery according to what was necessary for the fair disposal of the applicant”s case or for the saving of costs. Furthermore, under O.24 of the Grand Court Rules, the parties themselves had the same duty as in any other proceedings to provide each other with all necessary and relevant information at the close of pleadings, and it was the duty of counsel to ensure that their clients did so. Discovery was to be made not only in respect of the subject-matter of the action but all matters in issue and should include any information which would enable the other party to advance his own case or damage that of his opponent (page 358, line 27 – page 359, line 8; page 359, lines 17–39).

(2) Since the main issue in this case was whether the Board”s decision was unreasonable, the Board”s duty would not be met merely by disclosing the record of its decision. All documents should be disclosed which related to the factors considered, including minutes of proceedings before it and before the Executive Council, any record of their reasoning and the material particulars of case law actually relied on or presented to them during the decision-making...