Julian Robinson v The Attorney General of Jamaica

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Mr Justice Bryan Sykes,Mr Justice David Batts,Mrs. Justice Lisa Palmer Hamilton
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2019
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. 2018HCV01788
• Year: 2019

Between

Julian Robinson

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Jamaica

Defendant

JM 2022 SC 185

[2019] JMCC Full 5

Coram:

The Hon. Mr Justice Bryan Sykes, Chief Justice

The Hon. Mr Justice David Batts

The Hon. Mrs. Justice Lisa Palmer Hamilton (Ag)

CLAIM NO. 2018HCV01788

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE FULL COURT

Constitutional relief — Costs — Whether there should be an Order for costs in Claimant's favour — Whether no costs should be ordered due to the exceptional public interest and import of the claim — Whether costs should be on a full indemnity basis — Whether certificate for four counsel to be granted.

Michael Hylton QC, Donna Scott-Mottley, Jennifer Housen and Sophia Frazer-Binns instructed by Paulwell Frazer-Binns & Co for the Claimant

Marlene Malahoo-Forte QC, Attorney General of Jamaica, Althea Jarrett, Deputy Attorney General, Marlene Aldred, Deputy Attorney General, Carla Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, Donia Fuller-Barrett, Crown Counsel, Andre Bascoe, Crown Counsel, and Jeffrey Foreman, Crown Counsel for the Defendant

IN OPEN COURT.

1 In this matter judgments on liability were delivered on the 12th April 2019. On that date we invited the parties to make written submissions on costs. That was done. We considered the submissions filed and decided, on the 30 ^th May 2019, as follows:

We promised then to give reasons for our decision and we now do so.

• a) Costs to the Claimant to be taxed if not agreed

• b) Certificate for four Counsel granted.

2 The Claimant, in his submission filed on the 2 ^nd May 2019, urged us to award costs on a full indemnity basis and to allow costs for four attorneys-at-law. He urged us to have regard to the Defendant's failure to heed the Parliamentary Opposition's request that the Bill be referred to a joint select committee. The Claimant argued that the Civil Procedure Rules did not intend to deprive successful litigants of their costs and relied upon Toussaint v Attorney General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [2007] 1 WLR 2825 (a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council). The submission for costs on a full indemnity basis, was supported by reference to judgments of Sykes J (as he then was) in RBTT Bank Jamaica Limited v Y P Seaton et al [2014] JMSC Civ 139 and Batts J in Port Kaiser Oil Terminal SA v Rusal Alpart [2016] JMCC Comm 10. In seeking an Order, for costs for four attorneys at law, the Claimant pointed to the complexity of the matter and the fact that the Defendant had been represented by “no less than” seven attorneys at law.

3 The Defendant in written submissions filed on the 3 ^rd May 2019, argued that there should be no order made as to costs. Costs, it was submitted, are discretionary. The Defendant says that this is not an appropriate case in which to make an order for costs. The matter had been one of exceptional public interest and import. The Defendant invited the...