A Grand Court judge has granted a group of beach vendors, who are trying to challenge authorities over being denied licences to trade on Seven Mile Beach Park, an extension of time to allow them to bring their legal action.
In January this year, of the more than 120 companies or individuals who applied for permits to sell goods or services at the beach, only 34 were issued licences. This led some of the vendors who had been denied permits to attempt to take the Public Lands Commission to court to challenge the decision.
At the time the vendors filed their application to bring a judicial review, there was no mechanism in place through which they could appeal the refusal of the licences. Since then, the government has introduced a policy to allow vendors to appeal.
Justice Jalil Asif, KC, in his ruling, issued on 19 July, outlined the background of the case, noting that the various vendors involved had been operating businesses at Public Beach on Seven Mile Beach for between two and 19 years. When the permits were issued to the successful vendors on 15 Jan., those who had been denied were ordered to cease trading and vacate the site by 14 Feb.
On 12 Feb., nine of those vendors applied to the court for leave to take judicial review proceedings, arguing that they had invested in their businesses on the basis of assurances that they would be granted permits under the new system.
They also highlighted a lack of official, formal reasons for the denial of the licences, and the lack of an appeals process as a breach of their rights under the Cayman Islands Constitution.
When the matter came before Asif on 13 Feb., he granted leave to move ahead with the action. He told the vendors they needed to file further evidence by 23 Feb., “giving further particulars of representations regarding their licences, which they allege were made to them by officials from the Public Lands Commission and on which they relied in support of their claim”.
He also stayed the requirement that those vendors should cease trading and vacate Public Beach until the judicial review has been determined.
The vendors, however, failed to file or serve their notice of originating motion and other related documentation within the required seven days, he said.
Outlining the timeline of events, the judge said on 22 Feb., the vendors’ legal counsel had emailed the Public Lands Commission a link to download an electronic copy of the documentation on which they had relied at the application for leave, intending that this effectively served the documents on the respondents.
The following day, the vendors sought an extension of time to complete and serve the supplemental affidavits that Asif had ordered. They were granted an extension to 26 Feb. On that day, they tried to file the supplemental affidavits, but were rejected by the court’s registry for reasons “relating to the form”, the judge said.
They then sought an additional extension to 27 Feb. for filing the supplemental affidavits, which Asif again granted, and the affidavits were filed on that day. Also, on 27 Feb., the Public Lands Commission informed the vendors that they did not accept service of the documentation sent via the link to the soft copies sent on 23 Feb.
The Public Lands Commission then served a summons to strike out the claim for failure to comply with Grand Court Rules, which was eventually heard on 13 June.
Counsel for the Public Lands Commission argued that because the vendors had failed to submit their documentation within the seven-day deadline set in the Grand Court Rules, the judge’s leave to move ahead with a judicial review was conditional on the papers being served and, therefore, the proceedings should be nullified.
In his ruling, the judge said there was no doubt that the vendors had failed to serve the notice of motion and other documents within the seven-day period, and that failure to do so had been a breach of the Grand Court Rules.
However, he found that “that breach does not make the proceedings a nullity. Instead, at most, it is an irregularity in respect of which the appropriate course of action is for an applicant to apply for an extension of time.”
Though noting that the Grand Court Rules impose a time limit for serving the relevant documents, the judge said, “a failure to comply does not have the consequence that the leave lapses and does not render the judicial review proceedings a nullity or otherwise invalid”, and he granted the vendors the extension of time they had sought.
Related Videos
