Durant International Corp and Ors -v- AG 27-Apr-2006 [2006] JRC 065 (27 April 2006)

judgment the commissioner: 1. This is an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review. In order to obtain leave the applicants have to show that they have an arguable case, and that there is material fit to be investigated. I have listened to Advocate Robinson with patience and without interruption, and she has made to me every submission which she wishes to make. I find absolutely no merit in this application. It comes no where near giving rise to argument fit to be investigated. There is no arguable case.

2. The grounds that Advocate Robinson has advanced are four-fold: (i) The Advocate General's refusal to recuse himself; and (ii) that the Advocate General is not entitled to rely on a presumption of regularity; and (iii) that there was an inadequacy of reasons given by the Attorney General in his decision letter of 30 th March, this year; and (iv) the applicants held a legitimate expectation that information submitted to Brazil would not give rise to a tax prosecution without the Attorney General's consent and that he indicated that he would not consent.

3. I have considered each of those grounds separately and cumulatively. There is no argument to be raised. I have, in the course of my duties as a judge in England, heard hundreds of applications for leave to apply for Judicial Review and substantive applications for review. It has been my unhappy experience to deal with many which are utterly devoid of merit. This is one of them. What distinguishes this case from the others is the persistence and the sophisticated and valiant determination with which this application is made. Miss Robinson urges me to deal with this case on its own merits and I have done so. Nevertheless, it would be unreal to expect me to ignore events which have preceded this application. I have dealt with it on its own merits, but it follows a previous application and substantive hearing and a decision by the Court of Appeal in which the learned President of the Court of Appeal characterised the conduct in pursuing this matter as a delaying tactic, I share that view. Accordingly the application is dismissed.

4. Costs on an indemnity basis. This order is intended to reflect my view of the merits, or lack of them, of this application. Leave to appeal is refused. No Authorities Page Last Updated: 26 Jun 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII