Honourable Attorney General and another v Isaac

Under the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000, a public-law claim is not necessarily an application for judicial review. Part 56 recognises four distinct categories of administrative-order applications.

Classification normally follows the remedies sought, but the court may examine the substance where the form conceals a claim for prerogative or equivalent relief. A claim confined to declarations concerning past public-law conduct, together with damages, and seeking no quashing, mandatory or prohibitory order, may proceed as a declaration claim against a public body without leave. The public-law character of the dispute, or a challenge to legality or procedure, is insufficient by itself to require judicial review.

Ms Isaac, the Executive Secretary of the Board of Education, challenged her suspension, the investigation into her conduct and publication of the investigation report. She sought declarations and damages against the Attorney General and the Minister of Education, but no quashing, mandatory or prohibitory order.

The appellants applied to strike out the fixed date claim because leave had not been obtained under Part 56. They also argued that the dispute was a private employment matter for the Industrial Court. Henry J dismissed the application, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Privy Council considered whether the claim was an application for judicial review under Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2000, or an application for declarations against a public body, and whether the pending Industrial Court proceedings affected that classification.

The Board dismissed the appeal and advised that the respondent’s costs should be paid, subject to written submissions within 14 days.

1. Structure of Part 56. Part 56 concerns administrative law and recognises four distinct categories of application, including constitutional relief, declarations against public bodies, judicial review and applications to quash specified decisions or instruments. The fact that a claim raises public-law issues therefore does not determine that it is an application for judicial review.
2. Classification of judicial review applications. The remedies in CPR 56.1(3)—certiorari, mandamus and prohibition—are important and may be determinative, but the provision is not exhaustive. Normally, the remedies sought identify the nature of the application. Where necessary, the court may look behind the form and examine the substance and the remedies actually being pursued, particularly to prevent a claimant avoiding the leave requirement by pleading declaratory relief. An in-depth analysis will not normally be required.
3. Authorities. O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] AC 237; [1982] 3 WLR 1096 reflects the different English legal position and cannot be translated to Antigua and Barbuda. The formulation in General Medical Council v Michalak [2017] UKSC 71; [2017] 1 WLR 4193 concerned a specific English statutory question and offered little assistance. The analogous approach in Belize Bank Ltd v Association of Concerned Belizeans and others, Civil Appeal No 18 of 2007, supported treating declaratory claims differently from claims seeking quashing or coercive relief.
4. Application. Ms Isaac sought declarations about completed conduct and damages. She did not seek certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, reinstatement or any equivalent relief. Her claim therefore fell within CPR 56.1(1)(b), not CPR 56.1(1)(c), and leave under CPR 56.3 was unnecessary. Section 20 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Act did not require the court to grant further relief on these facts. The Board did not need to determine the separate employment-forum issue while Industrial Court proceedings remained pending.

• Privy Council: In [2018] UKPC 11, the appeal was dismissed. The respondent was awarded the costs of the appeal, subject to written submissions.
• Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda): On 11 March 2016, the appellants’ appeal from the strike-out decision was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice: On 29 April 2015, Henry J dismissed the application to withdraw the acknowledgment of service and strike out the claim.