Harrikissoon v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1979 |
| Date | 1979 |
| Year | 1979 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Trinidad and Tobago - Constitution - Human rights and fundamental freedoms - Transfer of teacher to another school - Teacher not availing himself of procedure for review of order - Application to High Court alleging contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms - Whether application misconceived -
The Teaching Service Commission of Trinidad and Tobago, acting under regulation 135 (1) of the
On appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that, although the right to apply to the High Court under section 6 (1) of the Constitution for redress when a human right or fundamental freedom had been or was likely to be contravened was an important safeguard of those rights and freedoms, it was an abuse of the process of the court to make such an application as a means of avoiding the necessity of applying for the appropriate judicial remedy for an unlawful administrative action which involved no contravention of a human right or fundamental freedom; that, since the right of a public officer not to be transferred against his will was not a right of property and since the appellant had deliberately chosen not to apply for the appropriate judicial remedy which the law gave him, the proceedings brought by the appellant and his claim that he had been deprived of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by section 1 (a) and (b) of the Constitution, namely, the rights to enjoy property, equality before the law and the protection of the law, were totally misconceived (post, pp. 64C–65B, 67B).
(2) That the appellant's remedy against the order transferring him to another school was to apply under regulation 135 of the Regulations of 1968 for a review of the order; that until such application was made, the commission had no duty to consider his representations against the order and accordingly, his claim that the order was unlawful failed in limine (post, p. 67D–E).
Per curiam. The language of section 102 (4) of the Constitution is wide enough to deprive all courts of jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the validity of an order of transfer on either of the grounds alleged by the appellant in the instant case (post, p. 68A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission[
Gerriah Sarran, In re(
No additional cases were cited in argument.
APPEAL (No. 40 of 1977) by Kemrajh Harrikissoon from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Sir Isaac Hyatali C.J. and Phillips and Rees JJ.A.) on March 29, 1977, of the appellant's appeal from the judgment of Cross J. on June 30, 1975, dismissing the appellant's motion dated May 6, 1975, claiming that the order of the Teaching Service Commission communicated to the appellant by letters dated January 25 and March 25, 1975, was unconstitutional, illegal, void and of no effect and that the appellant was entitled to relief pursuant to section 6 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago of 1962.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Fenton Ramsahoye S.C. (of the Trinidad and Tobago Bar) and Timothy Briden for the appellant.
Stuart McKinnon and Ivol Blackman (of the Trinidad and Tobago Bar) for the respondent.
January 15. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DIPLOCK.
These proceedings in which the appellant claims a declaration that human rights...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
- Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda v Lake
-
Ianthe Harding Administratrix of the Estate of Alfred Harding Deceased [Substituted by Order of this Court Dated January 30, 2001] Appellant v [1] The Superintendent of Prisons [2] Attorney General of St. Lucia Respondents [ECSC]
...were a number of authorities in support of this statement of the law. 12 InHarrikissoon v the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (1980) AC 265, the point was clearly made by the Privy council that the notion that whenever there is a failure by an organ of government or a public authori......
-
Solomon v Scotland
...Workers, [1978] A.C. 435; [1977] 3 W.L.R. 300; [1977] 3 All E.R. 70, referred to. (11) Harrikissoon v. Att.-Gen (Trinidad & Tobago), [1980] A.C. 265; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 62, followed. (12) Jaroo v. Att.-Gen. (Trinidad & Tobago), [2002] 1 A.C. 871; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 705, referred to. (13) Kirk Fre......
-
David Penn Claimant v [1] Telecommunications Regulatory Authority [2] Attorney General Defendant
...they can be maintained) are best suited to a judicial review challenge. The Court is satisfied on the authority of Harrikissoon v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265 that these claims should not properly advance under a constitutional challenge. In that case Lord Diplock ......
-
Constitutional damages, procedural due process and the Maharaj legacy : a comparative review of recent Commonwealth decisions (part 2)
...a fair hearing in Nigeria (1990) (2 ed) ch 6.nd[1971] 2 All ER 1278 (HL). 19Contra Harrikissoon v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265 (PC) where it held20that it was not every failure by an organ of government or a public authority or public officer to complywith the law t......
-
Constitutional damages, procedural due process and the Maharaj legacy : a comparative review of recent Commonwealth decisions (part 1)
...arrestable offence. Nor was the section discriminatory, since35Thomas (n 34) 22.36Harrikissoon v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1980] AC 265 (PC) at 269; Ong AhChaun v Public Prosecutor [1981] 648 at 673; Boodram (n 32) 845; Maharaj (n 2) 399.37Roodal v The State [2003] UKPC 78. S......
-
Judicial supervision of executive action in the commonwealth caribbean
...remedy at common law: see Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda and Others v Lake. 6 2 [1994] 1 All ER 833. 3 [1993] UK PC 1. 4 [1980] AC 265, at 268. 5 Privy Council Appeal No 54 of 2000. 6 [1998] 4 LRC 348. 38 Caribbean Law Review It is fair to say that courts are much more reluctant to......