Steve Straughn v The Registrar of the Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Madam Justice Shona O. Griffith
• Judgment Date: 10 August 2022
• Neutral Citation: BB 2022 HC 23
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No: 412 of 2018
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Year: 2022

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review under the Administrative Justice Act Chapter 109B of the Laws of Barbados

Between:

Steve Straughn

Claimant

and

The Registrar of the Supreme Court

First Defendant

The Attorney General

Second Defendant

Between:

Steve Straughn

Claimant

and

The Registrar of the Supreme Court

First Defendant

The Attorney General

Second Defendant

Before:

The Hon. Madam Justice Shona O. Griffith, Judge of the High Court

Civil Suit No: 412 of 2018

Civil Suit No: 544 of 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

HIGH COURT

CIVIL DIVISION

Appearances:

Mr. Steve Straughn in person.

Ms. Nicole Boyce in association with Gayle Scott for the Defendants.

DECISION

Introduction and Procedural Background

1 The two claims before the court are separately filed and not consolidated, but concern the same parties, advance the same causes of action and engage the same issues. More so, the subject matter of CV544/2019 is in fact CV412/2018. Accordingly, the Court deemed it appropriate to decide these two claims together, and did so by oral decision on the 17 ^th June, 2022. Along with these two matters, the Court's oral decision also disposed of the homonymous titles — CV1127/2020, CV1128/2020 and CV1129/2020 — Steve Straughn v Registrar of the Supreme Court & Attorney-General. These latter three claims were consolidated and are the subject of a separate written decision, but also involve the same parties, the same causes of action, and engaged essentially the same issues, hence the reason all five actions were disposed of in one oral decision. The Court intends to rely on its written decision in CV1127/2020 et al rather than set out its reasons in full again.

2 In March 2018, the Claimant Mr. Straughn, an attorney-at-law, filed CV412/2018 claiming judicial review arising out of a failure of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, to set a date of hearing in his matter Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2017 — Steve Straughn v The Judicial and Legal Services Commission, and the Attorney-General. The Claimant sought declaratory relief in relation to the Registrar's failure, an order of mandamus compelling the Registrar to set down the appeal, and an order for damages to be assessed for losses incurred by the Claimant as a result of the delay. The Claimant also asserted that his Constitutional right to a fair and expeditious hearing of the said civil appeal, had been breached and sought an award of damages for such breach. The 1 ^st Defendant accepted that she did not set down the civil appeal for hearing and the 2 ^nd Defendant failed to file a response within time and the Claimant objected to their application for permission to do so. This Court refused permission to file a response to the Claim and the matter proceeded to determination on submissions.

3 In April 2019, the Claimant filed CV544/2019, seeking judicial review against the Registrar's failure to set CV412/2018 (as described above) down for hearing. This Claim also followed the formulaic approach utilized in the other four matters mentioned herein. 1 The Defendants also followed their consistent approach of failing to file a response in time, and applied (before the 1 ^st hearing of the matter) for time to do so. The Claimant objected to the Defendants' application for an extension of time to file their defence to the Claim. This Court directed a hearing of the Defendants' application for extension of time which is in fact the application before the Court at this time. By its oral decision in relation to CV412/2018, this Claim was dismissed upon the same grounds and according to the same reasoning applied in CV1127–29/2020. In CV544/2019 the Court refused permission to the Defendants to file a response and summarily determined the claim as being an abuse of abuse, having regard to its relation to its underlying subject matter CV412/2018.

Relevant Factual Background

CV412/2018

4 (i) The facts of CV412/2018 pertain to the existence of Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2017, which is an interlocutory appeal filed by the Claimant, against the Judicial & Legal Services Commission, and the Attorney-General. The Claimant's statement of case in total, alleges that the Registrar of the Supreme Court in breach of her duties under Part 69 of

the CPR, failed to set down his Appeal for hearing, despite his letter of request for her so to do

• (ii) The Claimant deponed in his affidavit in support of his claim that his Appeal 21 of 2017 was filed in September 2017 and he filed his submission on the matter in October 2017. In February 2018 the Claimant by letter to the Registrar, requested that his Appeal be set down for hearing but this was not done.

• (iii) At the time of the filing of CV412/2018, the Claimant deponed that 7 months had elapsed since the filing of the appeal without a date for hearing being provided to him. As a consequence the Claimant sought declarations and orders by way of judicial review for the matter to be set down.

• (iv) The Claimant also asserted a breach of his section 18(8) Constitutional right to have his matter heard within a reasonable time. The Claimant sought damages both under his claim for judicial review and his claim for breach of his constitutional right.

• (v) Other than the patent delay in the matter not having been set down for hearing, the Claimant's statement of case did not allege any specific prejudice in his ability to prosecute the appeal, or allege any specific loss or damage that he suffered as a result of the delay. The fact of the delay alone grounded his claims for judicial review and the assertion of a breach of his section 18(8) constitutional right.

CV544/2019

5 (i) The Claim for judicial review and constitutional relief was based on the failure of the Registrar of the Supreme Court to afford him a date of hearing for CV412/2018, the facts of which are set out above;

• (ii) The complaint is formulated in the same manner as CV412/2018, which as stated by the Claimant in his supporting affidavit, was filed in March 2018. The matter came on for hearing before a Master (Ag.) of the Supreme Court in November 2018, and the Claimant sought the recusal of the Master on the grounds of apparent bias.

• (iii) The matter did not receive a further date and in March 2019 the Claimant by letter to the Registrar, requested that the matter be set down for hearing. Up to the filing of CV544/2019 in April 2019, 6 months had elapsed from when CV412/2018 had last been before the Court.

• (iv) As a result of the delay and failure to set the matter down for hearing, the Claimant sought his remedies by way of judicial review as well as constitutional relief for breach of his section 18(8) right to have his matter heard and determined within a reasonable time.

Determination of CV412/2018 and CV544/2019

6 Having regard to...