Administrative law and judicial review in Trinidad and Tobago

Administrative law in Trinidad and Tobago primarily concerns judicial review. Judicial review ensures that public officials act within the confines of the law. It is the procedure whereby the High Court reviews the administrative actions and failures to act, as well as the decision-making processes of inferior Courts, tribunals, public bodies, public authorities, or persons conferred with powers to exercise public duties in accordance with the law.

Judicial review proceedings are governed by the Judicial Review Act and Part 56 of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 (as amended)

Who can apply for judicial review

Section 5(2) of the Judicial Review Act of Trinidad and Tobago states that the following persons can apply for judicial review:

“a. a person whose interests are adversely affected by a decision; or

1. a person or a group of persons if the Court is satisfied that the application is justifiable in the public interest in the circumstances of the case.”

Grounds upon which an Application for Judicial Review may be initiated

Section 5(3) of the Judicial Review Act of Trinidad and Tobago demarcates several grounds upon which an applicant may rely to apply for judicial review. These include the grounds that:

1. The decision is unauthorized or contrary to law.
2. The decision maker exceeded his jurisdiction.
3. There was a failure to satisfy or observe conditions or procedures required by law.
4. There was a breach of natural justice.
5. There was an unreasonable, irregular or improper exercise of discretion.
6. There has been an abuse of power.
7. Fraud, bad faith, improper purpose or irrelevant considerations.
8. Acting on instructions from an unauthorized person.
9. Conflict with the policy of an Act.
10. Error of law, whether or not apparent on the face of the record.
11. Absence of evidence on which a finding or assumption of fact could reasonably be based.
12. Breach of or omission to perform duty;
13. Deprivation of legitimate expectation
14. Defect in form or a technical irregularity resulting in the miscarriage of justice
15. Exercise of power in a manner so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised that power.

These grounds are generally categorised into three overarching grounds which stem from Lord Diplock’s judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9. The three overarching grounds are:

1. Illegality;
2. Irrationality (unreasonableness); and
3. Procedural Impropriety.

Against whom can judicial review be brought?

Judicial review can be brought against public bodies and private bodies that exercise public functions.

The appropriate test to determine whether the decision forming the subject of judicial review falls within the remit of public law is a determination of whether the decision was made by a public body: R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Datafin [1 QB 815].

Exhaustion of alternative remedies

Section 9 of the Judicial Review Act states that the Court shall not grant leave to an Applicant for Judicial Review of a decision where any other written law provides an alternative procedure to question, review or appeal that decision, save in exceptional circumstances: Saga Trading Limited v The Comptroller of Customs and Excise TT 1998 HC 132.

Reliefs to be sought

On an Application for Judicial Review, the Court may grant the following forms of relief as set out at section 8 (1) of the Judicial Review Act:

1. 1. An order of mandamus (an order to compel persons to do particular things), prohibition (an order to restrain persons from particular actions) or certiorari (an order to quash the decision and possibly remit to the lower court: section 21 of the Judicial Review Act & Rule 56.15 (2) of the CPR);
   2. A declaration or injunction;
   3. An injunction under section 19 of the Act; or (d) such other orders, directions or writs as it considers just and as the circumstances warrant.