Indra Williams v Casepak Company (Grenada) Ltd (t/a Calabash Hotel) (Grenada)

Under the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act, statutory unfair-dismissal rights may be enforceable only through the procedures prescribed by the legislation. Where legislation creates a right and specifies its remedy or tribunal, the right and remedy cannot be dissociated. The High Court has no jurisdiction unless the legislation expressly provides it. This remains so where, in a non-essential service, an employer’s refusal to agree to arbitration prevents a binding determination. A general complaints provision does not create an alternative route where a specific procedure applies. Access-to-court and constitutional fair-hearing guarantees do not confer jurisdiction inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

The appellant was dismissed after a deterioration in her employment relationship. She pursued the statutory unfair-dismissal procedure. The Labour Commissioner and the Minister recommended severance pay, but the respondent refused to accept the recommendation or agree to the establishment of an arbitration tribunal. The employment was not in an essential service.

The High Court struck out the unfair-dismissal claim for want of jurisdiction, while allowing the wrongful-dismissal claim to proceed subject to amendment. The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The issue before the Privy Council was whether the High Court nevertheless had jurisdiction, including through section 89(2) of the Employment Act or constitutional access-to-court rights.

Lord Lloyd-Jones delivered the judgment of the Board, which dismissed the appeal.

1. The Employment Act and Labour Relations Act establish a comprehensive and exclusive scheme for vindicating statutory unfair-dismissal rights. Section 74 must be read with the later provisions governing enforcement. The right not to be unfairly dismissed is circumscribed by mandatory recourse to conciliation before the Labour Commissioner, mediation before the Minister and, where available, arbitration.

2. For a non-essential service, section 45(4) permits the Minister to invite agreement on an arbitration tribunal but compels neither party to agree. The absence of agreement therefore leaves no arbitration route under the statutory scheme. It does not create an alternative right to proceed in the High Court, even if an obstructive employer can frustrate the statutory process.

3. The Board applied the principle in Barraclough v Brown [1897] AC 615: a statutory right and its prescribed remedy are given together, and the claimant cannot insist on enforcing the right by another procedural route. The principle was also supported by Wilkinson v Barking Corpn [1948] 1 KB 721 and Pasmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387.

4. Section 89(2) does not assist the appellant. It permits access to the court only where no other procedure is specified. Section 82 specifically prescribes the procedure for unfair-dismissal complaints.

5. The prior question is the nature and content of the statutory right. Since that right is enforceable only through the statutory machinery, the restriction does not deny common-law or constitutional access-to-court rights. Section 8(8) of the Constitution cannot confer jurisdiction inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

6. Decisions under the different British Virgin Islands unfair-dismissal scheme were not an aid to interpreting the Grenada legislation. The possibility that the scheme may operate harshly is a matter for the legislature. Common-law wrongful-dismissal rights remain enforceable in the High Court.

The Board advised that the appeal be dismissed.

1. Privy Council — In Williams v Casepak Company (Grenada) Ltd, [2022] UKPC 9, the appeal was dismissed.
2. Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Grenada) — dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the unfair-dismissal claim was outside its jurisdiction.
3. High Court of Grenada — Dyer J (Ag) struck out the unfair-dismissal claim, but refused to strike out the wrongful-dismissal claim subject to amendment.