Court of Appeal decides interlocutory appeal in favour of PM

The Court of Appeal has ruled that Mr. Justice Donald McIntosh did not have the authority to grant the Leader of the Opposition an extension to file a fixed dated claim after the time for filing this document had expired.

The appeal was brought by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.



Barbara Gayle, in today's Gleaner recounts that:

On December 13 last year, Justice Kay Beckford granted [Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller) leave to apply for Judicial Review. Simpson Miller's lawyers had 14 days under the Civil Procedure Rules 2002 in which to file the fixed date claim form for Judicial Review after leave was granted.

The claim form was not filed in the Supreme Court Registry within the specified time and, when the matter came before Justice Donald McIntosh on January 10 for a first hearing, Simpson Miller's lawyers applied for an extension.

Justice McIntosh granted a 14-day extension for Simpson Miller to apply for Judicial Review.

Golding's lawyers had opposed the application for an extension and the judge granted Golding leave to appeal.

[R.N.A.] Henriques [QC, representing the PM and AG] argued before the Court of Appeal - comprising its president Justice Seymour Panton, Justice Algernon Smith and Justice Hazel Harris - that once Simpson Miller did not file the claim form within 14 days under the Civil Procedure Rules 2002, the leave expired. He said the leave was conditional upon the filing of the claim form by December 27 last year.

He said when the matter came before Justice McIntosh, there was nothing to extend because the leave had expired and no action had been commenced by the filing of a fixed date claim form within the time stipulated by the Civil Procedure Rules 2002.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the legal arguments and allowed the appeal.


The Court of Appeal has not yet delivered its written judgment. Linton Walters, one of the lawyers representing Mrs. Simpson Miller has reportedly mentioned the possibility of an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but this is subject to consultations with the Leader of the Opposition.


On the face of it, it appears that the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal, based on the the failure of the Mrs. Simpson Miller to file the fixed date claim within the prescribed deadline. I am more than a little surprised that Mrs. Simpson Miller's lawyers allowed themselves to get into this position, given the pivotal importance of the litigation.

Bert Samuels told me that it is still open to Leader of the Opposition to seek a declaration from the Supreme Court that the PM's actions were unlawful. The original litigation sought to quash the decision of the PM to dismiss the PSC by way of certiorari. Certiorari is one of the remedies of judicial review, and is used by the Supreme Court to quash a decision of a public official or authority.


The litigation of the former PSC members is still pending. Hopefully there are no similar procedural issues which prevent the examination and resolution of the substance of the dismissal of the PSC.