CMK BWI Ltd and others v Attorney General (CL-AP 16 of 2018) [2021] TCACA 5 (22 June 2021)

Case summary

Application to reconsider and vary the judgment dismissed. Application for conditional leave granted with conditions.   It was clear from the authorities that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to correct errors in its judgment provided that (i) it has not yet been perfected; and neither party has yet acted upon the decision to his or her detriment. In this regard, there is no rule requiring exceptional circumstances as a precondition to the exercise of the jurisdiction, nor is the exercise of the jurisdiction limited to cases in which the parties are agreed that the judgment contains an error. The overriding objective in every case must be to decide the case justly, taking into account all relevant factors and surrounding circumstances. This power however if not a “free-for-all”. The power to revisit previous decisions must be exercised ‘judicially and not capriciously’ (para 28) Re L and B (Children) [2013] UKSC 8 CONSIDERED; Space Air-conditioning PLC v Adrian Guy and Another [2012] EWCA Civ 1664 DISTINGUISHED  It was clear from the competing submissions that there were substantial arguments on both sides. Further, irrespective of which side was right, what was required from this court was a substantial rehearing of the appeal, particularly so in relation to Cockburn Harbour land. This in turn gave rise to the question of whether it would be possible to reconstitute the court which heard the appeal, given the retirement of Mottley P. In all these circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that the court which heard the appeal was no longer available to reconsider it, and bearing in mind that, subject to the question of conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council, the avenue of appeal was still open to the appellants, we came to the conclusion that this was not an appropriate case in which to make the order sought.  (para 30-32)  Application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council granted. 

---