Watler v Whittaker
Jurisdiction | Cayman Islands |
Judge | (Harre, C.J.) |
Judgment Date | 20 October 1995 |
Court | Grand Court (Cayman Islands) |
Date | 20 October 1995 |
(Harre, C.J.)
P. Lamontagne, Q.C. and G.W. Hampson for the plaintiff;
Ms. L. Agard, Crown Counsel, for the defendant.
(1) Bookbinder v. Tebbit (No. 2), [1992] 1 W.L.R. 217, distinguished.
(2) Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Governor & Company of the Bank of England, [1980] A.C. 1090; [1979] 3 All E.R. 700.
(3) Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] A.C. 910; [1968] 1 All E.R. 874, applied.
(4) Hasselblad (G.B.) Ltd. v. Orbinson, [1985] Q.B. 475; [1985] 1 All E.R. 173, distinguished.
(5) Pohiva v. Prime Minister & Kingdom of Tonga, [1988] L.R.C. (Const.) 949.
(6) R. v. Chief Constable of W. Midlands, ex p. Wiley, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 114; [1994] 3 All E.R. 420, considered.
(7) Rogers v. Home Secy., [1973] A.C. 388; [1972] 2 All E.R. 1057, distinguished.
Evidence-privilege-public interest immunity-court to balance harm to public service of disclosure with public interest in promoting administration of justice by not withholding documents-importance of documents in litigation relevant consideration-internal memorandum concerning public service personnel matters may be disclosed in proceedings for defamation if future candour in public service not affected by possible disclosure
Evidence-privilege-public interest immunity-class or content-court need not inspect documents to decide whether to order disclosure if immunity claim relates only to class of documents and not to specific content
The plaintiff applied for an order for production of documents in respect of which a public interest immunity certificate had been issued.
The plaintiff was an officer in the public service and the defendant was one of his superior officers. The plaintiff brought an action for defamation based on the alleged contents of a memorandum sent by the defendant to, inter alia, the Principal Secretary (Personnel) of the Government. The plaintiff sought disclosure of certain documents, including the memorandum, for use in his action for defamation, but the Chief Secretary issued a public interest immunity certificate relating to the documents. It stated that the documents belonged to a class of documents which it was necessary, in the public interest, to withhold because the possibility of disclosure would affect candour in personnel matters and thus impair the proper functioning of the public service.
The plaintiff applied in the present proceedings for an order for production of the documents, submitting that he should be entitled to disclosure because they were vital to his action for defamation and because it was not the case that candour in the public service would be adversely affected by the possibility of disclosure.
Held, granting the plaintiff”s application:
In deciding whether to order production of the documents, the court had to balance the possible harm that disclosure would cause to the public service with the public interest in promoting the administration of justice by not withholding documents. In this case, the documents were important to the plaintiff to maintain his action, and it could not be said that the candour of those in the public service would be adversely affected by the knowledge that such documents might be used in legal proceedings, since
the law afforded ample protection to those who honestly recorded opinions which they were under a duty to express. Further, there was no need for the court to examine the documents in order to decide whether to order production, since the claim for public interest immunity was not related to the specific contents of the documents but merely the class to which they belonged. It followed that the application would be granted and production of the documents would be ordered (page 514, lines 5–14;page 514, line 36 – page 515, line 13; page 516, lines 3–19;page 518, lines 6–15; lines 21–25).
HARRE, C.J.: This application arose in an action for defamation based | |
on the contents of a memorandum alleged to have been sent by the | |
defendant to the Principal Secretary (Personnel) of the Cayman Islands | |
30 | Government with copies distributed to others within the public service. |
The plaintiff was at the material time a Marine Conservation | |
Enforcement Officer and the defendant was Director of Environment and | |
as such one of the plaintiff”s superior officers. Thus both parties were | |
officers in the public service and the objection to the production of | |
35 | documents, and indeed to any oral evidence as to their contents, is set out |
in a certificate of the Chief Secretary dated January 31st, 1995, the | |
material part of which reads as follows: | |
‘The documents referred to . . . belong to a class of documents | |
which in the public interest it is necessary for the proper functioning | |
40 | of the public service to withhold from production as they relate to the |
assessment of the performance of duties of a public officer in a | |
Government Department. | |
In my capacity as administrative head of the civil service, I am | |
concerned to maintain the confidentiality of personnel matters within | |
45 | the service. It certainly is in the public interest that the service is |
staffed with competent and productive employees and it would | |
certainly impair the proper and efficient functioning of the service if | |
frank and honest assessments could not be made of the performance | |
of a public officer”s functions by his head of department.’ | |
5 | This application is of considerable importance to the plaintiff. If it fails, it |
is unlikely that he will be able to maintain his action. That is an important | |
consideration. Lord Pearce, in Conway v. Rimmer (3) ([1968] 1 All E.R. at | |
911) said that a judge must consider- | |
‘whether the documents in question are of much or little weight in |
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Douglas v Governor of the Cayman Islands and Director of Prisons; Ramoon v Governor of the Cayman Islands, Director of Prisons and Attorney General
...for Northern Ireland, [2006] UKHL 53; [2007] 1 A.C. 650; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1; [2007] 2 All E.R. 273, considered. (21) Watler v. Whittaker, 1994–95 CILR 512; on appeal, 1996 CILR 378, considered. The plaintiffs sought judicial review. The plaintiffs had been sentenced to imprisonment for a gan......
-
Whittaker v Watler
...if disclosure were permitted. Production and inspection of the documents was ordered. The Grand Court proceedings are reported at 1994–95 CILR 512. On appeal, the appellant submitted that (a) the Grand Court had failed to give a sufficient weight to the strong objections contained in the Ch......