News Publication Date: 17 June 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN
CIVIL DIVISION
CHANCERY PROCEDURE
IN THE MATTER of doleance claims filed by
WINSTON DONALD TAYLOR
and
STUART RONALD NEALE
in respect of wasted costs orders made by the Court of General Gaol Delivery in proceedings under reference Crim 2008/55
Judgment Summary issued by the High Court of Justice of the Isle of
Man
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the judgment of the court. It does not form part of the judgment. The judgment itself is the only authoritative document. The full judgment is available at www.judgments.im.
On the 17 June 2011 His Honour Deemster Doyle First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls sitting in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division Chancery Procedure delivered judgment in proceedings under reference CHP 11/0018 and 24.
The judgment concerns the proper construction of section 10(2) of the High Court Act 1991 and the issue as to whether the High Court Civil Division Chancery Procedure had jurisdiction to hear and determine doleance claims in respect of wasted costs orders made by a Deemster in the Court of General Gaol Delivery.
Section 10(2) of the High Court Act 1991 provides as follows:
“For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions of doleance in respect of any matter in, or proceeding of, the Court of General Gaol Delivery.”
The First Deemster considered the submissions and the relevant law including Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The First Deemster held that the wasted costs orders made by the trial Deemster in the Court of General Gaol Delivery and the subsequent doleance claims which requested that the wasted costs orders be quashed were in respect of matters in or proceedings of the Court of General Gaol Delivery and the High Court Civil Division Chancery Procedure did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the doleance claims. Such claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The First Deemster in his judgment stressed the summary nature of the jurisdiction to make wasted costs orders.
The First Deemster concluded his judgment with the following words:
'Wasted costs hearings should, in the normal course of events, take place in open court and the orders and judgment, unless the most exceptional circumstances arise, should refer to the names of the parties and anonymity should not prevail. The overriding requirement in this jurisdiction should be for open justice and transparency. We do not want judgments styled like alphabet soup (to us the provocative words referred to in Application of Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1 at paragraph 1) unless that is, in the interests of justice, really necessary.'