Kadeem Taylor v Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Pariagsingh, J
• Judgment Date: 17 February 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0217-2
• Docket Number: Case Number: SLUHCV2024/0248
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)

In the Matter of Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules (Revised Edition) 2023

-and-

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review

Between:

Kadeem Taylor

Claimant

and

Saint Lucia Air and Sea Ports Authority

Defendant

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice Alvin Pariagsingh

Case Number: SLUHCV2024/0248

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DIVISION

Natural Justice; Right to be heard before adverse decision made; Right to be given particulars of allegations; Delay in making application; Cross Examination in Judicial Review; Availability of Damages in Judicial Review.

Appearances:

Mr. Horace Fraser for the Claimant

Ms. Shari – Ann Walker and Ms. Tianah Foster for the Defendant

Claim for Judicial Review

INTRODUCTION:

Pariagsingh, J

1 Before the Court is the Claimant's claim for judicial review of the Defendant's decision contained in its letter dated 15 March 2022, denying the Claimant's application for a Port Pass.

2 The Claimant is a member of the Red Cap Association. By virtue of an agreement between the Red Cap Association and the Defendant, its members were permitted to provide baggage/porter services to passengers at Hewanorra International Airport and to have unescorted access to the restricted areas of the airport for the purpose of executing their services. For a period of approximately six (6) years before the impugned decision, the Claimant was able to offer his services as a member, having had the benefit of a Port Pass issued by the Airport Manager.

3 In early 2022, upon the expiry of this Port Pass, the Claimant applied to the Airport Manager for the issuance of a new Port Pass. By a letter dated 15 March 2022, the Airport Manager, Mr Edgar Stephen, wrote to the Claimant and indicated that:

“SLASPA regrets to inform you that pursuant to these investigations, it has been determined that you do not meet the criteria to be granted access to the Ports, therefore your application for a Port Pass has been denied.”

4 The Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant's decision contained in the letter dated 15 March 2022. The Claimant contends that the decision was in breach of the rules of natural justice and fairness and that he had a procedural and substantive legitimate expectation that he would be given the opportunity to be heard before a decision adverse to him was made. The Claimant also contends that the rejection of his application, based on the alleged allegation, was unreasonable, irrational, and unlawful, without due process and observance of natural justice. The Claimant also seeks damages, interest, and costs.

5 In opposition to the claim, the Defendant relies on the procedures set out in the Operational Procedures of the Saint Lucia Air and Seas Port Authority (SLASPA) Security Identification Badge System (SIBS). Under this system, section 21 of Part 1 requires a background check to be carried out. Under section 22(1) of Part 1 of SIBS, if a disqualifying offence is identified, the application must be referred to the Chief of Port Police, who, after consultation with an authorising officer (General Manager or an officer authorised by the General Manager), will either refer the application to the vetting team or issue a notice of disqualification to the applicant.

6 Section 2 of Part 2 of SIBS states that possession of a controlled drug is a disqualifying offence. Section 19 of Part 1 gives the General Manager of SLASPA the authority to delay or refuse to issue an ID Badge or Temporary Pass or withdraw an ID Badge that has already been issued, without stating any reason for doing so.

7 The Defendant contends that when background checks were carried out on the Claimant, it was discovered that he travelled to the USA and, during his stay in New York, was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to supply. The Defendant also asserts that the Claimant spent time under house arrest while in the USA.

8 The Defendant's case is that it was not required to furnish the Claimant with any additional information beyond the decision communicated in its letter of 15 March 2022. It contends that it was not necessary to invite the Claimant to respond to the findings of its background check, on the basis of national security. The Defendant also contends that:

“… those who are responsible for National Security must be the sole judges of what National Security requires, and the judicial process is unsuitable for determining issues concerning National Security.”

9 The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss this claim, with costs.

DISPOSITION:

10 The Court holds that the Defendant's failure to give the Claimant an opportunity to respond before denying him a Port Pass is in breach of the rules of natural justice. The denial of the Port Pass based on the results of the background check was unreasonable, irrational, and unlawful, especially considering the Claimant's previous six years of service under the Port Pass.

11 The Defendant did not properly follow the operational procedures set out in the SIBS. Whilst national security considerations may amount to sufficient grounds to refuse an application for a Port Pass, they do not arise from the evidence and as such, natural justice and procedural fairness considerations cannot be overridden.

12 The Defendant was obligated to provide the Claimant with specific details of the allegations or material against him and given the opportunity to respond before a decision adverse to him was made and the failure to do so, under the guise of national security, in this case is unlawful. The Claimant is not entitled to damages but is entitled to his costs of this claim.

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT:

13 In his affidavit in support, the Claimant deposes that he is a Red Cap baggage handler by trade and has been plying his trade at Hewannora International Airport for a period of six (6) years prior to March 2022. He contends that it is a requirement for members of the Red Cap Association who desire unescorted access to the restricted areas of the airport to apply for and obtain a port pass from the Airport Manager. In early 2022, his port pass expired, and he made an application to the office of the Airport Manager for a new port pass.

14 On 15 March 2022, the Airport Manager, Mr. Edgar Stephen, wrote to him indicating that the Port Police had conducted investigations and obtained background information about him and had determined that he did not meet the criteria required to be issued a port pass. The letter also informed him that his application had been denied.

15 About two months after the denial of his port pass, he sought an audience with the Airport Manager, and he was informed that the process of considering the application involved reviewing the recommendation of the Port Police. Based on their recommendation, his application was denied.

16 The Claimant's evidence is that he then sought the assistance of the executive of the Red Caps Association, but assistance was not forthcoming, as according to him, there was a fear that intervention on his behalf might affect the relationship between the Association and the Defendant.

17 In early 2023, the Claimant sought the assistance of an attorney at law to mount this challenge (the first attorney). This attorney was not able to assist the Claimant and indicated so after about two (2) months.

18 The Claimant then sought the assistance of a second attorney, who informed the Claimant that he would not act on his behalf as he had previously acted for the Defendant and was conflicted.

19 In early 2024, the Claimant sought the assistance of a third attorney. This attorney confirmed in a letter dated 5 April 2024 to the Claimant's current attorney that she was unable to act for the Claimant, as she too was conflicted in the matter.

20 It was shortly after the Claimant retained his new attorney that this claim was filed on 21 June 2024. The claim was filed 2 years and 2 months after the decision was made.

21 In respect of damages, the Claimant's case is that the decision threw him into financial ruin. He contends that he was only able to start a small business in December 2023, but the difference in earnings is about $4,800 to $5,000 per month compared to what he previously earned.

EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION:

22 The Defendant relied on the affidavit of Mr. Daren Cenac, the General Manager of the Defendant, to oppose the claim. In his affidavit, Mr. Cenac contends that the matter involving the Claimant exposed the Defendant to certain national security risks. In his evidence, he sets out the relevant procedure and considerations in the issuance of a port pass. The procedure and criteria are set out in Sections 21 and 22 of the Defendant's Security Identification Badge System (SIBS). In summary, the procedure is as follows:

• 1) An application must be submitted to the Port Police Department.

• 2) A background check, which includes a criminal history check, employment and school history check, verification of identity and place of residence (including a foreign address if the person resided abroad), is carried out pursuant to Section 21 of Part 1.

• 3) Section 22(1) of Part 1 of SIBS provides that where a disqualifying offence is identified, a notice of disqualification is issued to the applicant.

• 4) Section 2 of Part 2 of SIBS states that having possession of a controlled drug constitutes a disqualifying offence for the purpose of a port pass application.

• 5) Section 19 of Part 1 of SIBS gives the General Manager of SLASPA the authority to delay or refuse to issue an ID badge or temporary pass or withdraw an ID badge that has already been issued without stating a reason for doing so.

23 The Defendant's evidence is that when the Claimant submitted his application to renew his port pass, the necessary background checks were conducted, and it was discovered that the Claimant, while in New York,...