|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2015 |
|
|
Allegations of procedural unfairness, social friendships and press criticism failed to show a real possibility of judicial bias; appeal dismissed.
Judicial recusal — apparent bias — fair‑minded and informed observer test (Porter v Magill) — procedural conduct in leave applications — refusal of adjournments and prior adverse rulings insufficient alone for recusal — speculative social friendships and press coverage do not establish real possibility of bias.
|
2 June 2015 |
| May 2015 |
|
|
Application for leave to appeal to Privy Council refused: legal aid rate dispute neither a £300+ judgment nor a constitutional rights claim.
Administrative law — judicial review (certiorari and mandamus) — legal aid fee determination by Registrar — whether decision constitutes a "final judgment" for Privy Council appeal under Section 3(a) (£300 threshold) — constitutional law — enforcement of fundamental rights (Section 21) — when Section 21 confers right of appeal.
|
8 May 2015 |
| March 2015 |
|
|
Conviction unsafe where jury was not warned to treat critical, uncorroborated witness evidence as potentially tainted.
Criminal law — circumstantial case reliant on single witness — unsupported assertion linking accused to weapon — duty to warn jury of possible improper motive and to treat uncorroborated evidence with caution — failure to do so renders conviction unsafe; retrial ordered.
|
25 March 2015 |
| January 2015 |
|
|
Criminal law
|
29 January 2015 |
|
Recent-possession and vehicle-occupancy evidence upheld convictions for hotel-room burglary and handling stolen goods; sentences affirmed.
Criminal law – Burglary and handling stolen goods; recent possession doctrine; inferring joint possession from vehicle occupancy during items being discarded; alibi undermined by CCTV; sentencing — seriousness of dwelling/hotel-room burglary and whether sentence is manifestly excessive.
|
29 January 2015 |
|
Criminal law
|
16 January 2015 |
| October 2014 |
|
|
Court affirmed judge‑alone trial under TWAJO; no criminal proof standard for s4 and judge’s appointment was constitutionally acceptable.
Trials without a jury – s.4 TWAJO – "satisfied" invites judicial evaluative assessment not criminal standard; Pre‑trial publicity and "climate of fear" may justify judge‑alone trial; Judicial independence/impartiality – tenure, appointment process and constitutional safeguards assessed against Strasbourg jurisprudence; Prior co‑defendant sentencing does not automatically disqualify judge absent objective risk of bias.
|
20 October 2014 |
| September 2014 |
|
|
Appeal allowed and matter remitted because trial judge failed to properly analyse a key valuation report commissioned by the respondent.
Equity/Unjust enrichment – undervalue transfer of Crown land; knowing receipt and fiduciary duty – assessment of knowledge; valuation evidence – duty to analyse a valuation commissioned by a beneficiary and its contemporaneous market-value statement; appellate remedy – remittal for rehearing where trial judge misappreciates key documentary evidence.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
Application for Privy Council leave refused: extension of time for serving Notice of Intention to Appeal not appealable as of right.
Appeals — Privy Council — Article 3(a) (as of right) — requirement of monetary value or property claim — interlocutory extension application not monetizable. Appeals — Privy Council — Article 3(b) (leave) — question of "great or general importance" — applicant's procedural question not found to satisfy test. Civil procedure — Notice of Intention to Appeal (s.15 Court of Appeal Ordinance) v Notice of Appeal (Rule 13) — tension between Ordinance and Rules noted but not resolved. Jurisdiction — Court of Appeal's power to extend time — following Inversiones Globales Ltd v Hope, no power to extend time under s.15.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
Appellate court dismissed rape appeal despite omission of a cautionary direction, applying proviso and confirming seven-year sentence.
Criminal law – rape – complainant intoxication and cautionary directions; absence of DNA evidence – jury assessment; majority verdict directions – when required; good character directions – credibility limb required only where defendant gives evidence or relies on exculpatory statements; application of proviso (s.7(1) Court of Appeal Ordinance).
|
11 September 2014 |
|
Whether prosecutions under the Integrity Commission Ordinance were time‑barred and whether a customs officer’s failure to verify a veterinary certificate constituted corruption.
Criminal law – corruption – act of corruption by public official – failure to ensure statutory veterinary certificate compliance for imported animal. Statute of limitations – Public Authorities Protection Ordinance – whether protection applies to acts not bona fide in execution of duty. Integrity Commission Ordinance – sections 13(1)(e), 55–58 and 57 – Commission investigations on own initiative, powers of investigative officers, and prosecutions arising therefrom. Jurisdiction – Magistrates’ Court competence to try offences arising from Commission investigations. Customs and public health law – requirements of veterinary certificates under Public and Environmental Health Ordinance section 28.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
Summary judgment entered without required service, reasons, or basis on the pleadings was set aside and matter remitted.
Civil procedure – summary judgment – Order 14 requirements – service and time for summons and affidavit – abridgement of time; Judicial discretion – adjournment – requirement to give reasons; Pleadings – liability of multiple corporate plaintiffs where contract admitted to be with one only; Duty to consider pleaded defences (force majeure, frustration) before summary judgment; Failure to give adequate reasons as standalone ground of appeal; Removal of charging order entered consequent to set-aside judgment.
|
11 September 2014 |
|
A statutory deeming provision that shifts the burden to a ship’s master to disprove knowledge of drugs violates the presumption of innocence and is not justified.
Constitutional law – presumption of innocence – statutory deeming/reverse onus provision in drug law – whether reverse onus violates s.6(2)(a) and s.6(7) – limitation in public interest under s.1 – proportionality and rational connection (Oakes; Salabiaku; Lambert).
|
11 September 2014 |
| July 2014 |
|
|
An unsealed, unsigned notice failed to meet section 15 and the Court of Appeal lacked power to extend time; application dismissed.
Court of Appeal – appeals from Supreme Court (civil) – section 15 Court of Appeal Ordinance – Notice of Intention to Appeal must be written, given to Registrar and served within 28 days – unsealed/unsigned notice invalid – Rules vs Ordinance conflict – extension of time jurisdiction not vested in Court of Appeal but in Supreme Court – application dismissed.
|
4 July 2014 |
| May 2014 |
|
|
A Belonger Status certificate is evidence, not conclusive; marital-transfer restriction does not violate constitutional discrimination.
Immigration law – Belonger Status – interpretation of section 3(6)(a) – certificate as evidence but not conclusive. Evidence – admissibility of executive records and Permanent Secretary’s evidence to rebut errors on certificates. Citizenship acquisition – section 3(2) excluding spouses of persons who acquired status by marriage from passing status. Constitutional law – discrimination under section 15 TCI Constitution – limited to specified grounds; scheme does not violate equality provision.
|
8 May 2014 |
| April 2014 |
|
|
Default judgment set aside where no contractual termination, procedural irregularity, and delay did not justify refusing relief.
Civil procedure – setting aside default judgment; irregular default judgment; contractual termination and liquidated damages (clauses 6.2(a), 6.3); attorney professional conduct (duty not to take default where another attorney is concerned); discretion and delay in relief from judgment.
|
8 April 2014 |
| January 2014 |
|
|
|
30 January 2014 |
|
Appeal dismissed: trial judge properly allowed prosecution reopening; summing‑up fair and sentence not excessive.
Criminal law – reopening prosecution case after close – judicial discretion; admission evidence; summing‑up – permissible judicial comment versus improper direction; self‑defence; sentence review – manifest excess.
|
30 January 2014 |
|
Defence counsel's failure to put the appellant's instructed defence to witnesses denied the appellant a fair trial.
Criminal law – right to a fair trial – duty of defence counsel to put the accused's case to prosecution witnesses (Browne v Dunn) – tactical decisions versus following client instructions – counsel's failure to present essential defence can amount to miscarriage of justice – conviction unsafe; retrial ordered.
|
30 January 2014 |
|
Compensation award remitted where Tribunal failed to explain preferring oral testimony over documentary evidence on wages and start date.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – Tribunal's duty to give reasons – preferring oral evidence over documentary records – necessity to state findings on commencement date and wages before awarding compensation.
|
30 January 2014 |
|
Departure by defence counsel from the accused’s instructed defence without consent can deny a fair trial and render a conviction unsafe.
Criminal law — Fair trial — Duty of defence counsel to put client’s case to prosecution witnesses — Tactical decisions by counsel — Effect of counsel departing from instructions without client consent. Criminal procedure — Miscarriage of justice — When counsel’s conduct renders a conviction unsafe. Evidence — Failure to challenge prosecution evidence on matters central to defence (explanation for DNA) may prejudice fairness of trial.
|
30 January 2014 |
|
Fine for contempt reduced to US$1,000; attorneys must seek court approval to vary court orders.
Contempt — Failure to comply with disclosure order; duty of attorneys to obey court orders and to apply for extensions before deadlines; informal private variations of court orders improper; mitigation in fixing penalties for contempt; reduction of excessive fine from US$3,000 to US$1,000; costs order — respondent to have 50% of costs.
|
30 January 2014 |
|
A Labour Tribunal decision made by only two members after a member’s revocation is irregular and must be vacated and reheard.
Labour law – Tribunal composition – Validity of decision where a member’s appointment is revoked before judgment – Employment Ordinance ss.94, 95(5) – Irregularly constituted tribunal requires vacatur and rehearing.
|
30 January 2014 |
| December 2013 |
|
|
Appellants awarded 50% of costs below after mixed success on appeal; drafting-error and counsel-authority arguments rejected.
Costs — appellate costs awarded — discretion as to costs in the court below — effect of party’s alleged contractual drafting error on costs — refusal to entertain counsel authorization issue in costs determination.
|
31 December 2013 |
| May 2013 |
|
|
Whether a beachfront resort assumed responsibility and owed guests a duty of care, and whether pleadings can be struck out.
Negligence — duty of care — omissions and duty to rescue — assumption of responsibility by resort operators (lifeguards, roped swimming area) — proximity and policy — strike‑out test — causation pleaded as matter for evidence.
|
9 May 2013 |
| April 2013 |
|
|
|
30 April 2013 |
| January 2013 |
|
|
Registrar entitled to set legal aid fees; Chief Justice cannot unilaterally impose VHCC rates — appeal dismissed.
Administrative law – legal aid – distinction between grant of legal aid (Chief Justice) and setting of fees (Registrar) under Legal Aid Rules. Constitutional/fair trial – equality of arms requires absence of substantial disadvantage, not parity of prosecutorial and defence fees. Ultra vires – Chief Justice could not bind Registrar to implement VHCC scheme under existing Rules. Wednesbury/irrationality – Registrar’s fee decision was rational and adequately reasoned. Case management – VHCC/hourly schemes may be administratively burdensome in small jurisdictions.
|
24 January 2013 |
| December 2012 |
|
|
Court retained jurisdiction and directed that remand and pending-appeal custody be counted towards sentence commencement and early release.
Criminal appeal — functus officio — Registrar’s notification and recording under Order 64 — Court of Appeal retained jurisdiction where lower court record not made; Sentencing — Court of Appeal’s discretion under s.14(3) to direct commencement of sentence; Prison law — Remand time/counting towards sentence (Prison Rules r.9(5)(a)) — remand time counts unless court orders otherwise.
|
31 December 2012 |
| October 2012 |
|
|
Article 4 requires filing a motion for leave within 21 days; it does not require service on respondents within that period.
Appeals to Privy Council – Interpretation of Article 4 of the Turks and Caicos (Appeal to Privy Council) Order – whether 21‑day requirement applies to filing only or to filing and service; Distinction between procedural requirements in Orders to Privy Council and statutory appeal provisions (Court of Appeal Ordinance s.15(1)); Court may not impose requirements beyond the clear terms of the Order.
|
4 October 2012 |
| January 2012 |
|
|
Court upheld conviction where circumstantial evidence supported inference of joint possession and intent to supply.
Criminal law – possession and possession with intent to supply – constructive and joint possession inferred from conduct and circumstances. Evidence – circumstantial evidence – test for no-case submission: whether a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict. Criminal procedure – inconsistent verdicts – burden on appellant to show no reasonable jury could have returned the verdicts; inconsistency not automatically fatal. Authorities considered: Mitchell; Varlack (Galbraith principles); authorities on inconsistent verdicts (Durante, Green).
|
26 January 2012 |
|
Administrative Review
|
26 January 2012 |
|
Civil Remedies
|
26 January 2012 |
| July 2011 |
|
|
|
15 July 2011 |
|
|
15 July 2011 |
|
Criminal law
|
4 July 2011 |
|
|
4 July 2011 |
| January 2011 |
|
|
|
25 January 2011 |
|
Criminal law
|
17 January 2011 |
| July 2010 |
|
|
Leave was required; several causes of action exceeded the writ indorsement and the remaining claim was struck out as vexatious and abusive.
Civil procedure – striking-out – adequacy of writ indorsement – particulars of claim – injunctions – interlocutory v final orders – leave to appeal required – abuse of process and vexatious proceedings where duplicate causes are pleaded in separate actions.
|
29 July 2010 |
| February 2010 |
|
|
A purported forfeiture notice that offers no reasonable period to remedy fails the statutory s56 requirements and is invalid.
Forfeiture of lease — Registered Land Ordinance s55–56 — statutory notice requirements to specify breach and allow reasonable time to remedy — strict compliance required; notice from overseas law firm not inherently invalid; defective notice cannot be severed.
|
28 February 2010 |
|
|
12 February 2010 |
|
A court may enforce an undertaking and order immediate assessment where a Mareva injunction was discharged for material non-disclosure; discretion governs timing.
Civil procedure – Mareva (freezing) injunction – enforcement of undertaking in damages – discretion to order inquiry/assessment immediately or defer to trial. Ex parte applications – material non-disclosure – effect on enforcement of undertakings given on injunction. Costs – immediate taxation and payment where court forms adverse view of conduct of party obtaining injunction.
|
12 February 2010 |
|
Placing an employee on short-time without a contractual right (express or proved implied term) amounted to dismissal.
Employment law – short-time and lay-off – statutory scheme (Employment Order paras.13–14) defines lay-off/short-time but does not confer unilateral right to suspend work; right must be in contract – implied terms/customs – burden of proof to establish custom or usage – Labour Tribunal error in treating absence of written term as dispositive – remedy: dismissal where no contractual authority to short-time.
|
12 February 2010 |
| January 2010 |
|
|
Labour and Employment Law
|
26 January 2010 |
| July 2009 |
|
|
Court of Appeal held English Act s8 not applicable; remittal leaves delay and bail matters to the Supreme Court.
Criminal procedure – remittal for retrial – Court of Appeal functus officio on remittal; Criminal Procedure Ordinance s7 does not import English Court of Appeal Act 1968 s8; Delay and abuse of process – remedies for delay lie with Supreme Court (inherent jurisdiction or constitutional enforcement of right to timely fair trial); Bail – Supreme Court retains power to grant bail after remittal; Prosecutorial appeals against bail doubtful under Court of Appeal Ordinance s6; Admission of co-accused confession and material irregularities – grounds for quashing convictions.
|
29 July 2009 |
| February 2008 |
|
|
Missing police register rendered oral evidence inadmissible; handling convictions vacated, officer's attempt-to-pervert conviction upheld.
Evidence — Production of original documents — Admissibility of oral testimony about entries in official registers — Evidence Ordinance s.9 — Missing police register — Proof required for handling stolen goods — Attempting to pervert course of justice — Distinction between passive possession and active intent.
|
14 February 2008 |
| December 2007 |
|
|
|
11 December 2007 |
| August 2007 |
|
|
Tribunal erred by re‑weighing evidence; employer met Burchell test and dismissal was reasonable.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – application of Burchell test (genuine belief, reasonable grounds, reasonable investigation) – tribunal must assess reasonableness, not re‑weigh employer's evidence.
|
18 August 2007 |
| February 2007 |
|
|
|
5 February 2007 |
|
A juvenile "Her Majesty's pleasure" sentence must read "the court's pleasure" and release applications belong to the Supreme Court.
Criminal law – Sentencing of juvenile offenders – Detention "during Her Majesty's pleasure" substituted with "during the court's pleasure" to protect separation of powers; purpose of "pleasure" sentences is periodic judicial review; applications for release should be made to the sentencing court (Supreme Court) with affidavits served on the Crown.
|
5 February 2007 |