Anthony Noel Hosein v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

In a constitutional claim where relief is discretionary, delay may amount to abuse of process or justify refusing relief. The court should ask whether the delay is inordinate and, if so, whether there is a cogent explanation. The availability of adequate redress through timely ordinary proceedings is relevant, but a claimant cannot justify waiting for a parallel statutory remedy that was not yet operational. Prejudice to the defendant is not a precondition. The focus is on misuse of the court’s constitutional process. Appellate intervention in such evaluative decisions is limited to material misdirection, failure to consider relevant matters, error of principle, or a conclusion that was not open to the court.

The appellant alleged that Caroni (1975) Ltd, a State-owned company, retrenched him in 2003 without allowing him to accept a Voluntary Separation Employment Package. He alleged discrimination, victimisation and breaches of constitutional rights.

He pursued proceedings under the Equal Opportunity Act from 2009, but withdrew them in 2020. He then brought a constitutional claim against the Attorney General. The High Court dismissed the claim as an abuse of process because it had been brought approximately 17 years after the alleged breach. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The central issue before the Board was whether the delay justified striking out the constitutional claim.

The Board dismissed the appeal.

1. The court has an inherent jurisdiction to strike out a claim for abuse of process. The principle stated in Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 supported that jurisdiction. Since the point was common ground, it was unnecessary to decide whether Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 Part 26 supplied a concurrent jurisdiction.
2. Under section 14 of the Constitution, constitutional relief is discretionary. Consistently with Durity v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2002] UKPC 20; [2003] 1 AC 405 and Webster v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2015] UKPC 10; [2015] ICR 1048, the critical questions were whether the delay was inordinate and, if so, whether there was a cogent explanation. Delay may render the proceedings abusive or disentitle the claimant to relief, permitting strike-out where no discretionary relief would be granted.
3. Prejudice to the respondent was not required to establish abuse. The focus was on misuse of the court’s process, although the Court of Appeal was entitled to infer prejudice from the loss of documents and the passage of time.
4. The decision to strike out for abuse of process involved an evaluative judgment. Under Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260; [2008] 1 WLR 748, appellate intervention was justified only for immaterial or omitted factors, an error of principle, or a conclusion that was not open to the court.
5. The 17-year delay was plainly inordinate. Waiting from 2003 to 2009 for a statutory remedy under the Equal Opportunity Act was not a cogent explanation because the Act was not then operational. Pursuing and withdrawing the statutory proceedings caused further delay. Reliance on Jaroo v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2002] UKPC 5; [2002] 1 AC 871 did not justify waiting for a remedy that was unavailable. The concerns based on Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 6 and alleged bias within the Tribunal likewise did not provide a cogent explanation, particularly as remedies were available within those proceedings.
6. The additional separation-of-powers complaint had no substance. Communication between the judge and the executive, where the executive was a party and the communication concerned case management, did not engage the separation of powers. No ground for appellate intervention was established.

1. Privy Council: In [2026] UKPC 19, the Board dismissed the appeal.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: On 11 October 2022, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the strike-out for inordinate delay.
3. High Court of Trinidad and Tobago: On 9 May 2022, Gobin J dismissed the constitutional claim as an abuse of process.