Responsible Development for Abaco (RDA) Ltd (Appellant) v The Right Honourable Perry Christie and others (Respondents) (Bahamas)

Responsible Development for Abaco (RDA) Ltd (Appellant) v The Right Honourable Perry Christie and others (Respondents) (Bahamas)

The Board held that RDA failed to show that the security for costs order in favour of the Government respondents would stifle its claim or breach its constitutional right of access to court, and that RDA was not entitled to costs protection as a public interest litigant under the Corner House principles. However, the Developers were not entitled to security for costs as they did not demonstrate a separate interest or issue justifying such an order under the Bolton principles.

Citation
[2023] UKPC 2
Parties
Appellant: Responsible Development for Abaco (RDA) Ltd; Respondents: The Rt Hon Perry G Christie and others (Government respondents); Respondents: Abaco Club Investments LLC and others (Developers); Interveners: Open Society Justice Initiative and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation, Costs Orders, Access to Justice
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Judicial Review Public Interest Litigation Costs Orders Access to Justice

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Responsible Development for Abaco (RDA) Ltd

Appellant

The Rt Hon Perry G Christie and others (Government respondents)

Respondents

Abaco Club Investments LLC and others (Developers)

Respondents

Open Society Justice Initiative and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Court of Appeal to Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for security for costs stifled RDA’s claim and breached its constitutional right of access to the court under Article 20(8) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered in a public interest judicial review claim.
  3. 3 Whether the Developers were entitled to security for costs under the Bolton principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The Board held that RDA failed to show that the security for costs order in favour of the Government respondents would stifle its claim or breach its constitutional right of access to court, and that RDA was not entitled to costs protection as a public interest litigant under the Corner House principles. However, the Developers were not entitled to security for costs as they did not demonstrate a separate interest or issue justifying such an order under the Bolton principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Order for security for costs in favour of the Government respondents upheld.
  • Order for security for costs in favour of the Developers set aside.