Robinson, Royburn v South East Regional Health Authority & Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Campbell J.
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2002
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] 9 JJC 3001
• Date: 30 September 2002
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. M121/2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN MISCELLANEOUS

SUIT NO. M121/2001

BETWEEN

ROYBURN ROBINSON

PLAINTIFF

AND

SOUTH EAST REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITHY

1 ^ST DEFENDANT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

2 ^ND DEFENDANT

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Interdiction from duty by Chief Personnel Officer - Application for leave to apply for Order of Certiorari to quash decision and for Order of Prohibition to prohibit the imposing of penalty arising out of interdiction

Campbell J

1 On the 11 ^th August 2000, the plaintiff (hereinafter called the applicant), filed an ex-parte Summons for an

• (a) Order for leave to be granted to the applicant to apply for an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the South East Regional Health Authority in a letter dated 24 ^th August 2001, addressed to the applicant, Royburn Robinson;

• (b) an Order for leave to be granted to the applicant to apply for an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Chief Personnel Officer and or the Public Service Commission, instructing the South East Regional Health Authority that the applicant should be interdicted from duty and be paid quarter salary with effect from 30 ^th March 2001 as contained in a letter dated 24 ^th August 2001, addressed to the applicant by South East Regional Health Authority;

• (c) an Order prohibiting the Public Service Commission and or the Chief Personnel Officer, or both, from imposing the penalties set out in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the letter dated 24 ^th August 2001 until the hearing of the plaintiff's application or until the Court otherwise orders;

• (d) an Order prohibiting the Public Service Commission and or the Chief Personnel Officer and or the South East Regional Health Authority from imposing any penalty on the applicant, arising out of the said interdiction.

2 On the 3 ^rd October 2001, James J. granted the application for leave sought the ex-parte summons. Paragraph 4 of his Order stated;

Order that execution of the penalties imposed as aforesaid be stayed until a final hearing of these proceedings, that is, until the determination of the application for an Order of Certiorari.

3 Some five months later, on the 7 ^th March 2002, the 2 ^nd defendant (hereinafter called the respondent) filed a Summons to set aside paragraph 4 of Mr. Justice James' Order, on the grounds that;

• (a) The said order is ambiguous since there are no "penalties" set forth in a letter dated 24 ^th August 2001.

• (b) The applicant failed to disclose to the Court at the time when the application for a stay was being considered that the decision to interdict the Applicant and to put him on quarter pay had been implemented from August 2001.

• (c) The order for a stay was not made in respect of "proceedings" as required by 564c(l) of the Judicature (Civil Procedure Code)(Amendment)(Judicial Review) Rules 1998.

• (d) A stay cannot be ordered in respect of a decision which has already been implemented.

4 The applicant seeks to impugn the letter dated 24 ^th August 2001, on the basis it imposes "penalties" in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and seeks to prohibit the imposition of such penalties by South East Regional Health Authority and Public Service...