Maharaj v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Sales |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKPC 21 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 0047 of 2018 |
| Date | 20 May 2019 |
[2019] UKPC 21
Lord Wilson
Lord Hodge
Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin
Lord Sales
Privy Council Appeal No 0047 of 2018
Easter Term
Privy Council
From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Appellant
Richard Clayton QC
Anand Ramlogan SC
Christopher Knight
Chelsea Stewart
(Instructed by Alvin Pariagsingh)
Respondent
Thomas Roe QC
Dominique Martineau
(Instructed by Signature Litigation LLP)
Heard on 20 March 2019
This appeal concerns a request made by the appellant (Mr Maharaj) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1999 (“ FOIA”) for disclosure of certain documents by the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago (“Petrotrin”), a state-owned company. The documents in issue are certain witness statements filed in arbitration proceedings between Petrotrin and World GTL Inc and World GTL St Lucia Ltd (together, “World GTL”).
Petrotrin refused Mr Maharaj's request for disclosure. Mr Maharaj made an application for leave to apply for judicial review of that refusal. By a decision of 31 March 2017 des Vignes J dismissed that application. In a short ruling delivered ex tempore on 10 July 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Maharaj's appeal. He now appeals to the Board.
The threshold for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review is low. The Board is concerned only to examine whether Mr Maharaj has an arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success: see governing principle (4) identified in Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2006] UKPC 57; [2007] 1 WLR 780, para 14.
The long title of the FOIA is:
“An Act to give members of the public a general right (with exceptions) of access to official documents of public authorities and for matters related thereto.”
The definition of “public authority” in section 4 includes “a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago which is owned or controlled by the state”. It is common ground that Petrotrin is a public authority for the purposes of the Act.
The definition of “official document” in section 4 is:
“a document held by a public authority in connection with its functions as such, whether or not it was created by that authority, and whether or not it was created before the commencement of this Act and, for the purposes of this definition, a document is held by a public authority if it is in its possession, custody or power.”
It is common ground that the witness statements in issue are official documents held by Petrotrin.
Section 3 provides:
“(1) The object of this Act is to extend the right of members of the public to access to information in the possession of public authorities by —
(a) making available to the public information about the operations of public authorities and, in particular, ensuring that the authorisations, policies, rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those authorisations, policies, rules and practices; and
(b) creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of public authorities limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by public authorities.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the object set out in subsection (1) and any discretion conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possible so as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.”
Section 11(1) provides:
“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the right of every person to obtain access to an official document.”
Section 13 deals with the process for making a request to obtain access to official documents.
Section 39(1) provides that a person aggrieved by a decision of a public authority under the FOIA may apply to the High Court for judicial review of the decision.
Part 4 of the FOIA sets out provisions which identify certain documents or types of document as exempt documents. Section 32(1) provides:
“A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would divulge any information or matter communicated in confidence by or on behalf of a person or a government to a public authority, and —
(a) the information would be exempt information if it were generated by a public authority; or
(b) the disclosure of the information under this Act would be contrary to the public interest by reason that the disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority to obtain similar information in the future.”
A public authority may be under a duty to disclose an exempt document if section 35 applies. It provides:
“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary a public authority shall give access to an exempt document where there is reasonable evidence that significant —
(a) abuse of authority or neglect in the performance of official duty; or
(b) injustice to an individual; or
(c) danger to the health or safety of an individual or of the public; or
(d) unauthorised use of public funds,
has or is likely to have occurred or in the circumstances giving access to the document is justified in the public interest having regard both to any benefit and to any damage that may arise from doing so.”
It is common ground that section 35 has two distinct limbs. A public authority is required to give access to an exempt document (i) where there is reasonable evidence that one or more of the matters set out in the sub-paragraphs has or is likely to have occurred, or (ii) where, in the circumstances, giving access to the document is justified in the public interest having regard both to any benefit and to any damage that may arise from doing so.
Section 5(3) of the Judicial Review Act 2000 sets out a non-exhaustive list of grounds for judicial review, including:
“(a) that the decision was in any way unauthorised or contrary to law;
…
(c) failure to satisfy or observe conditions … required by law;
…
(e) unreasonable, irregular or improper exercise of discretion;
…
(i) conflict with the policy of an Act;
(j) error of law, whether or not apparent on the face of the record;
…
(l) breach of or omission to perform a duty;
…
(o) an exercise of a power in a manner that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power.”
For present purposes, the factual background can be summarised shortly as follows. Mr Maharaj describes himself as a concerned citizen and social activist. He is also a member of the opposition United National Congress political party. He has a particular interest in matters relating to good governance, accountability, transparency and the rule of law.
In 2005 Petrotrin and World GTL embarked upon a joint venture to build, finance and operate a gas-to-liquids plant in Trinidad. Mr Malcolm Jones (“Mr Jones”) was the Executive Chairman and a member of the board of directors of Petrotrin at this time and was involved in the decision to proceed with the venture. Petrotrin was to supply the feedstock for the plant and to acquire its output, while World GTL was to supply the technology for the plant and be responsible for its management and operation.
As part of the arrangements to finance the construction of the plant, in September 2006 Petrotrin's board, including Mr Jones, caused Petrotrin to give a guarantee in respect of the financing provided by Credit Suisse. In particular, Petrotrin undertook to assume liability in respect of costs incurred in excess of those budgeted for the project.
The venture foundered in 2009 when Petrotrin elected to declare an event of default after construction delays and extensive cost overruns. The failure of the venture has been very costly for Petrotrin. It has had to meet substantial claims brought against it under the guarantee.
Petrotrin brought International Chamber of Commerce proceedings against World GTL. In December 2012 Petrotrin secured an arbitration award in its favour. However, that arbitration award has not been paid.
Meanwhile, in November 2011 World GTL commenced its own arbitration proceedings against Petrotrin in the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”), alleging that Petrotrin's termination of the venture had been in breach of duty and claiming compensation (“the LCIA arbitration”). In those proceedings, Petrotrin relied on witness statements from, among others, Charmaine Baptiste (dated 2 July and 21 December 2012) and Anthony Chan Tack (also dated 2 July and 21 December 2012). World GTL also filed witness statements.
Article 30 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules applicable at the relevant time made provision for confidentiality of documents. Article 30.1 provided:
“Unless the parties expressly agree in writing to the contrary, the parties undertake as a general principle to keep confidential all awards in their arbitration, together with all materials in the proceedings created for the purpose of the arbitration and all other documents produced by another party in the proceedings not otherwise in the public domain — save and to the extent that disclosure may be required of a party by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right or to enforce or challenge an award in bona fide legal proceedings before a state court or other judicial authority.”
In April 2013 Petrotrin commenced a claim against Mr Jones for alleged failure to take proper care in the conduct of Petrotrin's business and for breach of fiduciary duty in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shervon Peters v The Commissioner of Police
...No. P 200 of 2014) and Maharaj v Port Authority of Trinidad and Tobago CV 201801817 as was accepted by Lord Sales in Maharoj v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd [2019] UKPC 20 The public's right to access and the bias towards disclosure are balanced by exceptions created under t......
-
Ni Chuinneaghain's (Caoimhe) Application
...[2007] 1 WLR 780, where it was described as the “ordinary rule.” To the same effect is Maharaj v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 21 at para [3]. We consider that there is no inconsistency between this formulation of the test and the statement of the Privy Council in Mat......
-
Dukes Bailiffs Ltd v Breckland Council
...required under CPR 54.4. However, as Mr McGurk says in his Skeleton, the permission stage is, in essence a ‘filter’. In Maharaj v PCTT [2019] UKPC 21, Lord Sales said ‘The threshold for the grant of [permission] to apply for judicial review is low..’ What is required is an arguable ground ......
-
Flying Dutchman Overseas Ltd v The Port Authority
...v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] 4 LRC 712, 733.” 19 The Respondents also rely on the following passage from Maharaj v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 21 where the Privy Council stated as follows: “ The threshold for the grant of leave to apply for judicial re......