News Publication Date: 30 September 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN
CIVIL DIVISION
CHANCERY PROCEDURE
BETWEEN:
(1) JEREMY CHARLES ROBERT CLARKSON
(2) FRANCES CATHERINE CLARKSON Applicants
and
(1) ROY HICKEY (INSPECTOR)
(2) DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE Respondents
and
IAN COSTAIN of Public Rights of Way Langness
(Prowl) Interested Party
and
IN THE MATTER of an Application of the Applicants dated 12th April 2011 for leave to file a doleance claim out of time
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 30 September 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 judgment which dismissed the Applicants’ application for an extension of time to file a doleance claim.
On the 11 May 2010 the First Respondent’s Report on Public Rights of Way on the Langness Peninsula (the “Report”) was published and the Second Respondent gave notice of its intention to seek (a) to amend and (b) the leave of the High Court under section 92(7) of the Highways Act 1986 to amend the definitive map in reliance on the Report (the “Department’s Decision”).
On the 12 April 2011 the Applicants applied for leave to file a doleance claim out of time and an order that the First Deemster recuse himself from hearing and determining the application for leave to file a doleance claim out of time. The First Deemster heard the recusal application on the 11th May 2011 and delivered a judgment on the 23 May 2011 dismissing it for the reasons stated in the judgment.
On the 14 June 2011 the Applicants filed a doleance claim seeking orders quashing the Report and the Department’s Decision.
Rule 14.23 of the Rules of the High Court of Justice 2009 requires that a doleance claim be filed promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose. The grounds to make the claim in this case first arose on the 11 May 2010.
The First Deemster in his judgment of the 30 September 2011 held that there was no good reason for the delay of the Applicants in filing their doleance claim and that the issues raised on the face of the doleance claim did not raise matters of general public importance. The First Deemster held that this was not an exceptional case in the context of doleance claims. The First Deemster did not accept the submissions of the Applicants that the doleance claim disclosed a strong prima facie case on the merits. The First Deemster was not persuaded that there was a strong public interest in the resolution of the doleance claim on its merits and that it was otherwise appropriate for it to proceed out of time.
The First Deemster accordingly dismissed the Applicants’ application for leave to file a doleance claim out of time for the reasons stated in the judgment of the 30 September 2011.