Court Of Appeal Rules In Favour Of Gregg Anderson.  His Case Will Now Return To The Grand Court To Reconsider Aspects Of The Timing Of His Judicial Review Application

By Alric Lindsay

According to a Court of Appeal judgment delivered by Justice Richards on March 7, 2025, Gregg Vanguard Anderson was successful in an important ruling in connection with a judicial review application he is pursuing against the Utility Regulation & Competition Office (“OfReg”).  Anderson previously requested leave to apply for judicial review of OfReg’s decision not to renew his contract. However, the lower courts ruled that certain court documents were not filed within a seven-day deadline. His application was, therefore, “struck out” based on that technicality.  Anderson appealed against the striking out of his application and won.  The case now goes back to Grand Court for reconsideration of certain aspects.

Background

Based on the Court of Appeal judgment, Anderson’s one-year fixed-term employment contract as Executive Director of Energy expired on January 20, 2023. 

Reportedly, OfReg decided not to renew the contract. 

Anderson challenged this decision by instituting judicial review proceedings on February 24, 2023.

Regarding Anderson’s basis for the judicial review, the Court of Appeal judgment said:

His grounds were procedural irregularity in failing to follow the established procedure for consideration of the appointment of staff and failure by OfReg to conduct a fair and open recruitment process as required by section 41 of the Public Authority Act (2020 Revision) because colleagues had been offered three-year fixed term contracts.

The judgment added:

Mr Anderson’s affidavit stated that his contract was the ninth fixed term contract between him and OfReg since September 2017.

Concerning the technicalities surrounding Anderson’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, the judgment noted that:

Carter J gave leave on 10 March 2023, and the Minute of the Judge’s Order was served on OfReg on 17 March 2023.

On 28 April 2023, Mr Anderson submitted the Notice of Originating Motion and the Minute of the Judge’s Order granting him leave to the Court Registry for filing.

On 4 May 2023, the Order granting Mr Anderson leave was digitally signed by the Court.

The judgment added:

That day he or his representatives sent the Notice of Motion, the supporting affidavit, the Form 53 application, and the digitally signed Order granting leave to OfReg’s counsel by email.

On 5 May 2023, the Order granting leave was sealed by the Court and OfReg’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the documents served the day before.

On 17 May 2023 OfReg filed a summons to strike out on the ground that the Notice of Originating Motion was not filed within 7 days of leave being granted as required by GCR 53 r. 5(2) but was 41 days out of time and was in law “a nullity’ and “invalid”.

The judgment continued:

The hearing before Carter J was on 28 June 2023 and the learned judge gave her decision on 20 March 2024.

Regarding Carter J’s ruling, the Court of Appeal judgment said:

Carter J held… that the effect of the Motion being filed outside the time limit is that the Notice that was filed is invalid since the leave to apply for judicial review had lapsed irremediably.”

On 2 April 2024 Mr Anderson sought leave to appeal on two grounds: That Carter J erred in holding that (1) leave to apply for judicial review was conditional and failure to comply with GCR Ord 53 r. 5(2) rendered it a nullity, and (2) there is no discretion to extend time under GCR Ord. 3 r. 5.

Court of Appeal decision

In the judgment dated March 7, 2025, the Court of Appeal concluded as follows:

(1) There is jurisdiction to extend the seven-day time limit required by Order 53 Rule 5(2) for service of the specified documents where, bearing in mind the requirement in judicial review cases of the need for expedition and speedy certainty, a party has shown good reason for the extension.

(2) The time for service of the documents required by Order 53 Rule 5(2) runs from the receipt of the order as signed and sealed by the court.

(3) Mr Anderson’s appeal against the striking out of his action should be allowed and his case remitted to the Grand Court to consider whether there was a delay by him in preparing and submitting the order to the Platform for filing which meant that he did not comply with the principle requiring expedition and speedy certainty in judicial review proceedings and, if so, what, if any, consequences there should be because of that delay.

Note to readers:

It was highlighted in the Court of Appeal judgment that the Court of Appeal was disappointed that OfReg’s lawyers failed to draw the lower court judge’s attention to a critical case.

The Court of Appeal said:

I would however add this. It is most unfortunate that the decision of MacMillan J in Urgent Care was not drawn to Carter J’s attention. Mr Gayle was aware of that case, having been counsel in it. The fact, as was submitted to us, that because in his view Urgent Care was not relevant to the issues in Anderson he was not obliged to draw it to the Court’s attention was, I am bound to say, wholly untenable. Urgent Care was plainly relevant, albeit unfavourable to the submissions Mr Gayle was advancing in Anderson. It is axiomatic that  counsel is professionally obliged to draw the court’s attention to any relevant (or arguably relevant) authority, whether favourable to his case or not.

The full copy of the Court of Appeal judgment is below:

Share on Facebook

Post on X