Avaria Niles (Respondent) v Judicial and Legal Service Commission and another (Appellants) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0069

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Judicial and Legal Services Commission, (2) Attorney General

Respondent(s)

Avaria Niles

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a claim for judicial review was available to the Respondent and that the statutory scheme governing disciplinary proceedings did not provide an effective alternative remedy for her jurisdictional complaint?

Facts

The Respondent is a legal officer in the Judicial and Legal Service of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. On 3 March 2021, she failed to attend a court hearing in a matter to which was assigned. The next day, she applied for sick leave. Her employer, the Chief State Solicitor Department, commenced disciplinary proceedings against her, alleging that she had no reasonable excuse for her absence from court and that her sick leave application was falsely made. On 4 May 2022, those charges were upheld by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, the first Appellant in this appeal. The Respondent sought to challenge the disciplinary proceedings by way of judicial review. She claimed that the procedure failed to comply with the regulatory regime governing disciplinary proceedings (the “Regulation”). As a result, the decision of the first Appellant was unlawful, illegal and of no effect. She also alleged a breach of her due process rights under the constitution. The Appellants argued that judicial review is not available to her because her complaint can and ought to properly be dealt with under the Regulation. The High Court granted ex parte leave for the Respondent to bring a judicial review claim. Her claim was subsequently struck out by the trial judge on the basis that the Regulation provided a suitable alternative remedy. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal, holding that judicial review was available and that the Regulation was not an effective alternative remedy. The Appellants now appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.