CHP 11/0018 Judgment Summary (2) 17 June 2011

News Publication Date: 22 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
and
IN THE MATTER of the application of WINSTON DONALD TAYLOR made by email dated 13 June 2011 and orally on the 17 June 2011 for the Judgment to be anonymised

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 a further judgment in proceedings under reference CHP 11/0018 and 24 in respect of an application of Winston Donald Taylor for there to be no references to his name in the Judgment delivered earlier that day which held that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the doleance claims against the wasted costs order made by the Court of General Gaol Delivery.

The First Deemster concluded the earlier 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 use 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.'

The First Deemster considered Mr. Taylor’s application for the Judgment to be anonymised and dismissed such application.

The First Deemster stressed that the principle of open justice was an important principle. Derogations from open justice can only properly be made when, and to the extent that, they are strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice.

Mr. Taylor, an advocate, was in light of the contents of the wasted costs order judgments of the Court of General Gaol Delivery concerned over his reputation in a compact jurisdiction. The First Deemster held that no special treatment should be accorded to advocates. The First Deemster was not persuaded that the concern of Mr. Taylor in respect of his reputation should override the important principle of open justice.

The First Deemster could see no good reason to delete from the Judgment references to the names of the Claimants in this case. The First Deemster stated that he could see many good reasons as to why the court should administer justice in open court and the names of parties to the proceedings should be openly specified in the judgments and orders of the court.

Page last updated on 01 January 0001