News Publication Date: 17 October 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN
STAFF OF GOVERNMENT DIVISION
JOHN BARRY WATSON Appellant
And
LESLEE JOLLY Respondent
And
IN THE MATTER of an Appeal Notice dated the 7 October 2011
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 7 October 2011 the Staff of Government Division (Deemster Doyle and Deemster Moran QC) dismissed an appeal in respect of an order made by Deemster Corlett on the 5 October 2011 refusing an application dated the 3 October 2011 to vacate a trial due to commence on the 10 October 2011. Detailed reasons for such decision were delivered by way of judgment on the 17 October 2011. The facts are stated in the judgment.
The Staff of Government Division referred to its limited jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of a discretion at first instance applying Eurotrust Intl. v Barlow Clowes Intl. 1996-98 MLR 394.
It is well established that the Staff of Government Division should not interfere with the discretion of a Deemster acting within his jurisdiction at first instance unless the court is clearly satisfied that he was wrong. For the Staff of Government Division to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion (such as a decision to refuse an application to vacate trial dates) it must be shown that the Deemster at first instance exercised his discretion under a mistake of law; or misapprehension of the facts; or that he took into account irrelevant matters; or failed to exercise his discretion; or that the conclusion which the Deemster reached in the exercise of his discretion ‘exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible’ and was thereby plainly wrong so that the only legitimate conclusion was that he had erred in the exercise of his discretion. In all these circumstances the Staff of Government Division may substitute its own decision for that of the Deemster at first instance, but otherwise it should not interfere with the exercise of a judicial discretion. The authorities (including Highway and Transport Board v Johnson 1961-71 MLR 92 at 95) also make it clear that even if the Staff of Government Division thought that one or more of the reasons leading the Deemster at first instance to the particular decision which he made were wrong the Staff of Government Division must still not reverse the first instance decision unless it considers that the decision itself was wrong.
Applying the well established Eurotrust test the Staff of Government Division was not satisfied that it would have been justified in interfering with the exercise of the Deemster’s discretion in refusing to vacate the trial dates.
The Staff of Government Division held that Deemster Corlett had applied the correct legal principles and there had been no mistake of law. The Deemster took into account relevant matters and did not consider any matters that were irrelevant. The Staff of Government Division held that the Deemster was far from “plainly wrong”. He was, based on the limited evidence provided to the court, plainly right.
The Staff of Government Division stated that Deemster Corlett had adopted exactly the type of firm and robust approach that should be encouraged in respect of belated and misconceived applications to vacate trial dates. The Staff of Government Division wished to discourage late applications for vacation of trial dates.
The Staff of Government Division referred to the new culture under the Rules of the High Court of Justice 2009 and the need for cases to be resolved expeditiously, fairly, efficiently, within a short space of time and at a reasonable cost.
The Staff of Government Division indicated that it would support Deemsters at first instance who robustly deal with belated and misconceived applications to vacate trial dates.