Judicial Review and Topics Below
Judicial Review and Topics Below
Locus Standi
The Court may, on an application for judicial review, grant relief in accordance with this Act—
(a) to a person whose interests are adversely affected by a decision; or
(b) to a person or a group of persons if the Court is satisfied that the application is justifiable in
the public interest in the circumstances of the case.
Standing serves to:
Prevent frivolous/vexatious litigation
Prevent abuse by mischief makers
Prevent abuse of court process
Increase efficiency in the administration of justice
Who has standings?
AG v Antigua Times Ltd [1976] – Yes, standing. Whether a Newspaper (incorporated
company), claiming that it is a “person” under the Constitution is capable of enjoying the
fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution and has standing to bring a
judicial review application.
Collymore v AG [1969]
Individuals can bring a claim on behalf of an association or trade union
Real danger
Test for bias Fair minded and
informed observer
The legal principle concerning legitimate expectation stipulates that the power of public
authorities to change policy is constrained by the legal duty to be fair. This principle seeks to
resolve the conflict between the desire to protect the individual’s confidence in expectations
raised by administrative conduct and the need for administrators to purse changing policy
objectives. Procedural legitimate expectation concerns a representation that a hearing,
consultation, notice or other appropriate procedure will be afforded before the decision is made.
On the other hand, substantive legitimate expectation concerns cases where a representation is
made that a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of
the benefit that it will be continued and not be substantially varied.
Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has also found that a claim for substantive legitimate
expectation was made in Attorney General v Joseph and Boyce. The CCJ carried out a thorough
analysis of conflicting case law on this area and concluded that the two death row applicants had
a substantive
legitimate expectation to sit out proceedings before the international human rights body. The
CCJ relied on factors such as positive statements made by representatives of the executive
authority evincing an intention or desire on the part of the executive to abide by the international
treaty, statements made in parliament during the debate on the Constitution Amendment Act,
together with the practice of the Barbados government to give an opportunity to condemned men
to have their petitions to the international human rights body processed before proceedings to
execution.
More recently, in Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago,37 the Privy Council
found in favour of the appellants, maxi-taxi owners and operators, that a substantive legitimate
expectation had arisen. The Board held that the maxi-taxi owners and operators would be
permitted to operate from City Gate and would not be under the control or management of the
state-owned corporation; and the government had not proved that there was an overriding public
interest that justified the frustration of this legitimate expectation. Sir John Dyson SCJ, speaking
for the majority of the Board, recognised the relevant factors to consider where: first, the
representations were clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification; secondly, the
representations were made to a defined class, namely the maxi-taxi owners and operators;
thirdly, the representations were relied upon by the appellant; and fourthly, the critical
representation was that they would not be under the control and management of the state-owned
corporation.
RECAP NOTE