The Attorney General v Chastanet and Cazaubon

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Blenman, J.A.,Webster, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 04 July 2016
• Neutral Citation: LC 2016 CA 8
• Docket Number: SLUHCVAP2015/0016
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 04 July 2016

Court of Appeal

Baptiste, J.A.; Blenman, J.A.; Webster, J.A. (Ag.)

SLUHCVAP2015/0016

The Attorney General

and

Chastanet and Cazaubon

Appearances:

Mr. Anthony Astaphan SC, with him, Mr. Leslie Mondesir and instructed by Mr. Dwight Lay, Senior Crown Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Garth Patterson QC, with him, Mrs. Petra Jeffrey-Nelson for the First respondent.

Mr. Alberton Richelieu for the Second respondent.

Civil Appeal - Locus standi — Jurisdiction — Breach of trust — Misfeasance in public office — Essentials requirements for misfeasance in public office — Ownership of funds — Agency — Whether the learned judge erred in deciding the issues of locus standi and jurisdiction based on pleadings without the benefit of a full trial — Whether the judge erred in holding that the Attorney General had no locus standi to pursue the alleged tort if misfeasance in public office — Whether the learned judge erred in striking out amended statement of claim which had been overtaken by further amended statement of claim.

On 10th December 2013, the Attorney General filed a claim, which was amended on 21st January 2014, against former Government minister, Mr. Allen Chastanet and former Chairman of the Soufriere Town Council, Mr. Kenneth Cazaubon in which several allegations were made. Chief among those were that Mr. Chastanet, while a minister of Government and a candidate for the United Workers Party (“UWP”) requested, advised, received, permitted or acquiesced in the expenditure of the sum of $38,119.00 of public funds of the Council for the unlawful purpose of a campaign and political event for his personal and the political benefit of his political party, the UWP. Those funds were raised by the Government of Saint Lucia for specific community projects from the Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan). It was also alleged that Mr. Chastanet knew or ought to have known or was recklessly indifferent to the fact that the conduct in question was unlawful and that as a consequence, he acted in a manner that amounted to a breach of his fiduciary duties as a minister of Government, bad faith and/or misfeasance in public office. It was further alleged that Mr. Cazaubon, as Chairman of the Council, abdicated his authority and acted in breach of his fiduciary duties when he acted on the request, instruction or direction of Mr. Chastanet and gave instructions to pay or caused the Council to pay public funds for the unlawful purpose of meeting expenses of a campaign and political event. It is notable that the funds were deposited into the Council's account and were paid out of that account. Of significance is the fact that there was no clear pleading that the monies expended belonged to the Government of Saint Lucia and as a result ownership of the funds was in issue. In light of this, Mr. Chastanet, on 7th January 2014, filed an application to strike out the entire claim filed by the appellant on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim in so far as the appellant lacked standing to pursue the claim. Mr. Chastanet then amended his application to strike out the claim. That application came on for hearing on 5th December 2014 and on the same date the appellant sought and obtained leave to further amend its pleadings. Pursuant to the leave granted, the appellant further amended the statement of claim on 23rd April 2015 so as to assert the Government of Saint Lucia's ownership of the monies. No defence or amended defence or additional affidavits were ever filed in reply to the further amended statement of claim.

There is no indication that the learned judge was aware of the further amended statement of claim before he rendered his judgment. The learned judge focused exclusively on the amended claim and made several findings of fact based on those pleadings notwithstanding that the further amended statement of claim had overtaken the amended statement of claim. It is important to note that the learned judge made those findings before any evidence was taken in the trial. The learned judge found that the Attorney General did not have locus standi to bring the claim and struck it out on that basis and also ordered costs against the Attorney General. The Attorney General, dissatisfied with the decision, has appealed on several grounds. The central issue in this appeal is whether the learned judge erred in striking out the amended statement of claim on the basis that the Attorney General had no standing to bring the claim in view of the fact that the amended claim had been overtaken by the further amended statement of claim. The Attorney General argues that there was no basis to strike out the claim on the ground of jurisdiction. She argues that by virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act she can institute civil proceedings on behalf of the Crown and thus has legal standing to bring a claim to recover Government's property. The respondents strenuously resist the appeal and argue among other things that the learned judge was correct in striking out the claim on the basis that Attorney General lacked standing to bring the claim and relies on provisions of the Local Authorities Ordinance to show that the Council is a separate legal entity.

Held: allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned judge, remitting the further amended claim to be case managed by a different judge and ordering each party bear its own costs, that:

• 1. Per Blenman, J.A., Baptiste, J.A.:

  Where pleadings, having been further amended are filed and served, the issue of whether or not a cause of action arises on the amended pleadings is not a live one. The filing of a further amended statement of claim would effectively bring an end to an application to strike out the amended claim. In view of the fact that there is no indication that the learned judge was aware that the further amended statement of claim had been filed, his decision on the strike out application in relation to the amended claim cannot be sustained.

  Per Webster, J.A. (dissenting):

  In this case, the further amended statement of claim was filed and was therefore before the learned judge when he was preparing his judgment even though he did not refer to it in his judgment. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the judge did not consider the new pleadings. In any event, based on the way that the judge dealt with the issue of the ownership of the sum of $38,119.00 and his findings in the judgment, the new pleadings did not make a difference to his consideration of the issue.

• 2. A court which has to hear and determine a case must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction so to do. The term jurisdiction is wide in meaning and encompasses not only the territorial context but whether the court is clothed with the power and authority to pronounce on a dispute between the parties. The court has the inherent jurisdiction to ensure the proper parties are before it whether or not the matter that is engaging its attention is one of public or private law. The jurisdiction of the court and the standing of a claimant are therefore inextricably linked. Garthwaite v. Garthwaite [1964] 2 All E.R. 233 applied; Broadmoor Hospital Authority and another v. R [1999] All E.R. (D) 1466 applied; Re S' Hospital Patient) Courts Jurisdiction [1996] Fam.1 applied.

• 3. A statement of claim is not suitable for striking out if it raises a serious issue of fact which can only be properly determined by hearing oral evidence. The remedy of striking out is a nuclear option and should only be utilised in cases where the pleadings are incurably bad. Where there are pleadings by the claimant that monies belonged to the Crown and the defendant takes issue with that allegation, the matter can only be properly resolved after a full ventilation of the issue at trial.

• 4. As a general rule, it is unsuitable for a court to make a determination on complex issues of mixed fact and law solely on pleadings where witness statements have not been filed, disclosure has not been completed and the persons who provided the witness statement have not been subjected to cross examination to seek their credibility or test the veracity of their statements. It was therefore not open to the learned judge to conclude that that he was not required to look at witness statements or wait to see the evidence that would emerge during the trial but instead could have determined the issue of the ownership of the funds based entirely on the pleadings. In any event the application was inappropriate for the exercise of the court's power to strike out under Part 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2000.

  Ian Peters v. Robert George Spencer ANUHCVAP2009/0016 (delivered 22nd December 2009, unreported) followed; East Caribbean Flour Mills Limited v. Ormiston Ken Boyea and Eastern Caribbean Flour Mills Limited and Hudson

  William SVGHCVAP2006/0012 (delivered 16th July 2007, unreported) followed;

  McPhilemy v. Times Newspapers Ltd and others [1999] 3 All E.R. 775 applied;

• 5. Per Webster, J.A.:

• Where a serious justiciable issue is brought before the court by a party with a genuine and legitimate interest in obtaining a decision against an adverse party, the court will not allow legal niceties to bar such a party from seeking relief. The present case concerns serious issues of public importance; accordingly, the Government's standing to challenge the conduct of the respondents should not be determined on a preliminary objection to the court's jurisdiction.

• Re S. (Hospital Patient) Courts Jurisdiction [1996] Fam.1 applied.

INTRODUCTION

Blenman, J.A.

1 This is an appeal by the Attorney General against the written judgment of the learned judge dated 26th May 2015. In that judgment the learned judge struck out the amended claim form and amended statement of claim brought by the Attorney General against former Government minister, Mr. Allen Chastanet and former Chairman of the Soufriere...