Court name
Supreme Court of Turks and Caicos Islands
Case number
CL 126 of 2020
CL 28 of 2021

R (ex p Richard Sankar) v. HE The Governor of the TCI and others (CL 126 of 2020, CL 28 of 2021) [2021] TCASC 25 (15 October 2021);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2021] TCASC 25
Coram
Simons QC, J

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT                                                  ACTION NO. CL-126/2020

TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

(ON THE APPLICATION OF RICHARD SANKAR)

Applicant

and

(1) HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

(2) HON. VADEN DELROY WILLIAMS, MINISTER OF BORDER CONTROL

(3) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

Respondents

AND

IN THE SUPREME COURT                                                      ACTION NO. CL-28/2021

TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

 

BETWEEN:

RICHARD SANKAR

Applicant

and

(1) DESMOND WILSON, PERMANENT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF IMMIGRATION

(2) HON. ARLINGTON MUSGROVE, MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION

(3) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

Respondents

 

_________________

DECISION

_________________

 

Before:                                   Hon. Mr. Justice Carlos Simons, OBE QC

Appearances: (Via Microsoft Teams Meeting Link)

Mr. Tim Prudhoe, with Mr. Yuri Saunders and Ms. Andwina Lockhart of Prudhoe Caribbean, Attorneys for the Applicant in each case.

Ms. Motheba Linton, Senior Crown Counsel, with Ms. Angie Been of the Attorney General’s Chambers, Attorneys for the Respondents in each case.

 

Hearing Date:                       28 July 2021

Venue:                                   Court 5, Graceway Plaza, Leeward Highway, Providenciales

Date Delivered:                  15 October 2021

The Two Actions            

1. This is a Consolidated Judgment in two separate sets of proceedings brought by Mr. Sankar (the Plaintiff) against agents of the Turks and Caicos Islands Government (TCIG) in respect of actions or omissions alleged to have been taken or neglected by such agents in matters relating to him in the exercise of their decision-making authority on behalf of TCIG. For convenience I shall refer to each proceeding by its Court assigned Action Number and sequence – CL-126/2020, the first proceeding and CL-28/2021, the second proceeding.

 

2. It is not necessary to rehearse here the facts or history of either proceeding.  Suffice to say that in the first proceeding, CL-126/2020 filed on 16 October 2020, the Plaintiff sought Judicial Review of two decisions. The first made by the Second Respondent to have the Applicant’s application for TC Islander Status considered de novo by the TCI Status Commission when it had already been approved as a spousal application and the second was the refusal by the First Respondent to grant the Applicant a TC Islander Status Card and/or, a TC Islander Status Certificate.

 

3. In the second proceeding, CL-28/2021 launched on 20 March 2021 the Applicant sought Norwich Pharmacal Pre-Action Disclosure Relief against the Respondents in respect of a document referred to in TCIG Executive Council Minutes of 12 October 2005 as “Paper 05/828”. The Applicant contended that this Paper corresponded to his application and that it’s disclosure by the Respondents would enable him to determine what claim or claims he may have against one or more of the Respondents and the nature of any such claims.

Pre-hearing Resolution and Outstanding Issues      

4. For the hearing on 28 July 2021 counsel produced an agreed Hearing Bundle comprising the pleadings and affidavits in each proceeding and counsels’ skeletons arguments, together with a common Authorities Bundle. The Court has found these compilations to be enormously convenient and wishes to register its gratitude for the effort. Also, before the hearing date counsel took the time to engage with each other on the issues in contention in both sets of proceedings to such an extent that by the hearing date the status of each matter was as follows:

(i) In CL-126/2020, the issues in dispute had been essentially settled by the Respondents having granted the Applicant his TC Islander Status Card, leaving costs only unresolved.

(ii) In CL-28/2021, the Norwich Pharmacal disclosure sought has not been given, however such disclosure was sought in furtherance of the relief prayed in CL-128/2020, i.e., the issuance of the TC Islander Status Card. The Status Card has been issued and the need for the disclosure has been overtaken by events. There is therefore no further necessity for the Court to intervene.

5. In each proceeding therefore the only unresolved issue is costs. In CL-126/2020, counsel for the respondents has conceded costs on the standard basis, and I so order, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

6. In CL-28/2021 I also order that the applicant shall have his costs on the standard basis. Again, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

7. The Court is thankful for counsels’ preparation and assistance throughout.

 

Hon. Mr Justice Carlos W. Simons OBE QC

15 October 2021