Lawsuits withdrawn

The former members, Ruby Thompson-Boddie and Lenore Harris, have served four terms, or 16 years at the court. Their tenure came to an end 14 months ago and an extension, granted by the President, expired in April.

Thompson-Boddie and Harris filed lawsuit on May 27, after they said AG, Anand Ramlogan, failed to respond to a letter they sent in which they enquired as to their re-appointment as judges of the Industrial Court.

At present the number of members of the Industrial Court is determined by the President on the advice of the Cabinet. The issue of security of tenure and the way in which judges to the court are appointed has been a bugbear for members, including President of the Court, Cecil Bernard, who only two Fridays ago raised the issue in the AG’s presence as three new judges were welcomed to the court.

Their letter indicated that if no reply was forthcoming, they would seek redress in the High Court. After unsuccessfully attempting to seek leave to have the courts review the decision by the Cabinet, or by the AG (as the Cabinet’s designate) not to advise the President to re-appoint them as members of the Industrial Court, lawyers representing the two were given permission to withdraw their lawsuit when Justice Ricky Rahim ruled that he could not grant leave because there was no decision (of the AG or the Cabinet) to review.

In their lawsuit, Thompson-Boddie and Harris admitted that they were not aware if the AG had advised the Cabinet or the President to recommend their re-appointment to the court.

Apart from seeking declarations of unfairness and deprivation of their constitutional rights, the two said they were entitled to the cost of three first class return airfares, amounting to approximately $150,000 to London every alternate year of the term or office, or a travel grant of $38,400 per annum, a motor vehicle loan of $100,000 at six percent interest, exemptions from VAT and Motor Vehicle Tax and full medical benefits, with the exception of dental and vision care.

After Justice Rahim ruled he could not grant the two leave to file for judicial review, Douglas Mendes, SC, — lead attorney for Thompson-Boddie and Harris — asked that his clients not be made to pay costs and that the burden should fall on the AG, since he had neglected to respond to their lawyer’s letter which had he done so, would have avoided them seeking redress in the courts.

Mendes said the matter not only affects his clients, but other judges of the court whose tenure are due to expire.

As he explained why his clients should not be made to pay the cost of bringing the application — an issue which became somewhat heated among lawyers — Mendes said the President of the Industrial Court wrote to the AG on the issue, also pointing out that fresh appointments were made in April.

Cabinet, he said, was obviously giving consideration to making appointments, yet there were two judges who were not being told anything about their possible re-appointment.

He said in his letter to the AG, the President of the Industrial Court noted that the issue was causing some anxiety among members.

Mendes again reiterated that had the AG responded to his clients, the court action would have been avoided.

“These are judges of the Industrial Court, performing a judicial function,” Mendes argued.

“Mere courtesy demanded that you respond to the attorney representing judges of a court and all this would have been avoided if a response was forthcoming,” he said.

But Russell Martineau, who represented the AG, told the judge there was no reason for his client to pay cost in the failed action.

He said there was no basis for Thompson-Boddie and Harris’ action in the first place, and also criticised their contention that they sent a pre-action protocol letter to the AG, saying the system was being abused.

Agreeing that acknowledgment of the letter would have been the best course, he said everything must be viewed in context, pointing out that the AG was communicating with the President of the Court.

“So it is not as if the Attorney General did nothing. It was an ongoing process...The Attorney General has to be careful when writing letters to judges,” Martineau argued.

Martineau, in rejecting the application for the AG to be made to pay costs, reminded Justice Rahim that Judicial Review was not about “best practice but good administration”.

Also making an application for costs was Deborah Peake, SC, who on behalf of the Cabinet said the two former judges should pay the Cabinet’s cost in the failed action.

Justice Rahim will give his decision on June 7.

Michael Quamina and Michael Bullock also appeared for Thompson-Boddie and Harris, while Gerald Ramdeen, appeared with Martineau for the AG. Christlyn Moore also represented the Cabinet.