Mitchell (Appellant) v Georges (Respondent) (St Vincent and the Grenadines)

Mitchell (Appellant) v Georges (Respondent) (St Vincent and the Grenadines)

The language and findings in the Interim Report were so strongly worded and adverse to the appellant that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility that the respondent was biased and would not approach the remainder of the Inquiry with an open mind. The respondent should therefore take no further part in the Commission.

Citation
[2014] UKPC 43
Parties
Appellant: Mitchell; Respondent: Georges
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Final Appeal From Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias, Commissions of Inquiry, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Apparent Bias Commissions of Inquiry Procedural Fairness Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitchell

Appellant

Georges

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Final Appeal From Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (Commissioner) demonstrated apparent bias in the conduct of the Commission of Inquiry into the Ottley Hall Project
  2. 2 Whether the Interim Report issued by the respondent evidenced prejudgment or lack of impartiality
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required the appellant to be heard before the Interim Report was issued

Ratio Decidendi

The language and findings in the Interim Report were so strongly worded and adverse to the appellant that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility that the respondent was biased and would not approach the remainder of the Inquiry with an open mind. The respondent should therefore take no further part in the Commission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The respondent (Georges) shall take no further part in the Commission of Inquiry.
  • The parties to make written submissions on the appropriate form of order and costs within 21 days.