- Flynote
- Administrative Review
- Case summary
- The Originating summons was struck out pursuant to both O 18 r 19 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The Court made no orders as to costs. Sections 21 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands provide that if any person alleges that their fundamental rights are being infringed, they may apply to the Supreme Court for redress, which shall have original jurisdiction to determine the application. However, section 21 (3) of the Constitution provides “the Supreme Court shall not exercise its powers under this subsection if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress are or have been available to the person concerned under any other law” (“the proviso”) [6]. The courts have held in numerous cases that it is an abuse of the court’s process to seek constitutional relief when there is an adequate, parallel remedy [7]. Harrikissoon v the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265, Jaroo v the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2002] 1 AC 271 and Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2006] 1 AC 328; Brandt v Commissioner of Police and others (Montserrat) [2021] UKPC 12, considered. In this case, the Plaintiffs complained about an administrative decision by a public officer – the 2nd Defendant’s decision to refuse to fund the cost of interpretation services. The Plaintiffs could have sought to challenge that decision by way of judicial review proceedings. There was nothing to suggest that that alternative process would not have been adequate. The Court concluded that the proviso applied, there were or would have been available adequate means of redress in the form of judicial review.
Loading PDF...
This document is 804.6 KB. Do you want to load it?