Ingraham and Others v Glinton and another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] UKPC 40 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 53 of 2005 |
| Date | 24 July 2006 |
[2006] UKPC 40
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Steyn
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Carswell
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]
This is a most unusual appeal, unusual in the issue arising for the Board's determination and unusual too (perhaps unique) in the Board's decision to dispose of the appeal without an oral hearing, although with the benefit of the appellants' written argument, the respondents having chosen not to resist it.
The substantive issue arising is whether the Supreme Court of the Bahamas has jurisdiction to strike out proceedings brought by way of an application under article 28 of the Constitution of the Bahamas alleging a contravention of the Constitution on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. It is convenient to set out at once the material parts both of article 28 itself and also of Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1978, the rule under which the Bahamian courts' strike-out jurisdiction arises.
Article 28 of the constitution provides:
"(1) If any person alleges that any of the provisions of articles 16-27 (inclusive) of this Constitution has been … contravened in relation to him then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same subject matter which is lawfully available, that person may apply to the Supreme Court for redress;
(2) The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction (a) to hear and determine any application made by any person in pursuance of paragraph (1) of this article; and (b) …, and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate …"
Order 18 Rule 19(1) provides:
"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the indorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or the indorsement on the ground that (a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be; …"
The circumstances in which the issue arises here can be comparatively shortly stated. Following a G7 meeting in 1989 a Financial Action Task Force was established with responsibility amongst other things for making recommendations as to the labelling and blacklisting of jurisdictions "non-cooperative in the fight against money-laundering". In June 2000 the Task Force produced a report identifying "serious deficiencies in the counter money-laundering systems of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas", recording that "the counter money-laundering regime embodied in the legal, supervisory, and regulatory systems of the Bahamas suffer from serious systemic problems", and including the Bahamas in the list of uncooperative jurisdictions in relation to the prevention of money-laundering.
The following month the Prime Minister (the first appellant) publicly accepted "the legitimacy of a number of deficiencies identified" in the report and set in train the preparation and enactment of a raft of legislation, both primary and secondary, based on measures recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The legislation included: the Financial Intelligence Unit Act 2000, the Central Bank of Bahamas Act 2000, the Banks and Trust Companies Regulation Act 2000, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000, the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2000, the Financial and Corporate Service Providers Act 2000, the International Business Companies Act 2000, the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 2000, the Financial Intelligence (Transactions Reporting) Regulations 2000, and the Financial Intelligence (Transactions Reporting) Regulations 2001. Most of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (Buav) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...reflect the change to a more flexible approach to disclosure following Tweed v Parades Commission of Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53, [2007] 1 WLR 1. They reflect the fact that disclosure, standard or specific, may be ordered in judicial review, using the powers in rule 31.6 and 31.12. Tho......
-
Douglas v Governor of the Cayman Islands and Director of Prisons; Ramoon v Governor of the Cayman Islands, Director of Prisons and Attorney General
...45; [2008] HRLR 3; [2008] UKHRR 570, considered. (20) Tweed v. Parades Commn. for Northern Ireland, [2006] UKHL 53; [2007] 1 A.C. 650; [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1; [2007] 2 All E.R. 273, considered. (21) Watler v. Whittaker, 1994–95 CILR 512; on appeal, 1996 CILR 378, considered. The plaintiffs sough......
-
The Allied Trust and Allied Development Partners Ltd v Attorney General and Minister for Home Affairs
...complaint fully aired. On the other hand, as Lord Brown opined on behalf of the Privy Council in a Bahamian appeal, Ingraham v Clinton [2007] 1 WLR 1 at page 6A: ‘ It cannot be right that anyone issuing proceedings under…the Constitution is guaranteed a full hearing of his claim irrespecti......
-
Auto-Guadeloupe Investissement S.A.S v Alvarez et Al
...having to initiate “strike out” proceedings…” 25 It is clear from the Privy Council case of Ingraham and Others v. Glinton and Another (2006) 69 W.I.R. 20; [2007] 2 L.R.C. 142 that the power of the court to strike out a claim applies equally to claims for constitutional redress. At issue b......