Nicholson -v- Health & Social Services Committ [2005] JRC 100 (21 July 2005)

judgment the COMMISSIONER: 1. This is an application by the Health and Social Services Committee of the States of Jersey.

2. On 4 th June, 2004 the Royal Court ordered that the Order of Justice of the Plaintiff be dismissed. It is a tragic and complex case whereby the Plaintiff (who was, at trial, 26 years old) sustained serious brain damage and consequential lifelong impediments of many of his faculties at the time of his birth. The Plaintiff (who was represented by a curator) appealed and in a very detailed reserved judgment the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 22 nd November 2004. On that day the Court of Appeal gave the appellant leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Their judgment ends with these words: "Finally we should guard against some presently unforeseeable contingency. It therefore seems to us to be prudent to add to the order we have made an order that the parties be at liberty to apply to the Royal Court." 3. The only condition under the Privy Council Rules imposed by the Court of Appeal was that the appellant transmit the Record as defined in Rule 1 of the Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982 within a period of three months from 22 nd November 2004, to the Registrar of the Privy Council. That was done in due time and it is possible that the appeal may listed for January 2006.

4. Leading counsel have been instructed but a conference fixed for earlier in the year had to be re-arranged because of constraints on his time.

5. We have abridged time to allow Advocate Cadin to bring his summons which seeks full and perfected grounds of appeal in relation to the appeal to the Privy Council within 14 days and/or additionally security for costs in such sum as the Court may think fit.

6. It is on the record that one of the appellant's staff wrote to Advocate Cadin on nd April, to say: "Having now spoken to counsel and Advocate Costa I have been advised that we shall be doing our best to provide full grounds towards the end of June of this year".

7. Those grounds were not provided and as I have said the Appellant has still not had its conference with counsel.

8. The Court of Appeal has written of "unforeseeable contingency" not an "unforeseen contingency". Advocate Gilbert perhaps understandably was not able to give me an example of an "unforeseeable contingency". But I merely say that if it is an unforeseeable contingency that cannot in my view be something that lies within the Rules of the Privy Council.

9. In a letter passed up to me by Advocate Gilbert at the hearing I read these words written by her London solicitors: "We have dealt with a vast number of appeals from various jurisdictions. It is not our experience that grounds of appeal are ever required or included in the Record of Proceedings. Indeed since receiving the letter from Glovers we have checked the appeals that we are currently dealing with, and, as our experience tells us, none of the Records include grounds of appeal. I note that Glovers have not been able to point to any rule requiring the appellant to provide grounds of appeal." 10. I fully appreciate the frustration that is felt by Advocate Cadin but I do not feel that I have any authority to make the orders requested and therefore as I feel that I am functus officio the summons cannot succeed and is accordingly dismissed. Authorities Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982. Page Last Updated: 18 Aug 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII