Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Court of Appeal of Turks and Caicos Islands

The Court of Appeal currently sits in sessions on Providenciales and the Court is made up of at least 3 Judges of Appeal.

It has the jurisdiction assigned to it by the Court of Appeal Ordinance. It considers appeals from the Supreme Court and the Labour Tribunal. It also sits as a Constitutional Court, considering questions that may be referred to it by the Attorney General under the Attorney General’s Reference of Questions Ordinance.

Visit website
https://judicial.tc
4 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Attorneys
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
September 2006
Savory v Sirroco Ltd (CL-AP 27 of 2005) [2006] TCACA 6 (8 September 2006)
Client’s active, informed decision to appeal precluded finding solicitor negligent; appeal allowed and fees awarded.
Professional negligence – solicitor’s duty of care – standard measured by reasonably competent practitioner. Solicitor communications and client autonomy – whether solicitor’s e-mail constituted negligent advice to appeal. Appeal procedure – whether encouragement or discussion by counsel can amount to negligence. Recovery of legal fees – counterclaim allowed and judgment for unpaid fees with interest.
 8 September 2006
February 2006
Savory&Co. v Sirocco Ltd. (CL-AP 27 of 2005) [2006] TCACA 1 (19 February 2006)
Whether a solicitor negligently advised the respondent to appeal a strike-out order and thereby caused unnecessary litigation.
Professional negligence — Solicitor’s duty and standard of care — Advice to appeal a strike-out order — Causation and client autonomy — Evidentiary weight of contemporaneous e-mails — Remedies: repayment of fees, contractual interest and costs.
 19 February 2006
The Queen v Immigration Board of the Turks and Caicos Islands and Ors. ex parte Keeble (CL-AP 24 of 2005; CL-AP 25 of 2005) [2006] TCACA 7 (16 February 2006)
Applicant’s admitted payments to influence immigration decisions amounted to abuse of process; leave for judicial review refused.
Judicial review – leave to apply – abuse of process – applicant’s admitted payments via intermediary intended to affect immigration decisions – court refuses leave. Administrative law – natural justice – failure to give reasons and opportunity to be heard alleged but leave barred by abuse finding. Extension of time – applications concerning 2004 decisions were out of time, but determinative issue was abuse of process.
 16 February 2006
Monroe and Another v The Registrar of Lands (CL-AP 48 of 2014) [2006] TCACA 3 (2 February 2006)
2 February 2006