The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court sat on 22nd September 2022 and heard the case of the Physical Planning and Development Authority (PDA), Singapore Heng Sheng Grenada Ltd, Range Development Grenada Ltd and The Hartman Group v Grenada Land Actors. After five hours of oral arguments from five lawyers, the Court chose to reserve judgment to a later date, to which we will be notified. We note that the public gallery was well attended.
The main argument advanced by all the appellants was that the trial judge, Glasgow J, was wrong in his decision to leave the issue of GLA’s standing to bring this claim for exploration at a full trial. They argued that, by GLA’s own evidence before the court, GLA had no standing and that the Court of Appeal should dismiss the case.
The appellants also argued that GLA is a newly formed group with no track record of embarking on environmental challenges and lacked group expertise on these environmental issues. They argued that GLA’s main witnesses, who are also members with expertise in coastal science, coastal policy, wetland ecology and community ecology, might have individual qualifications, but did not gain them by working for GLA. Consequently, they argue that GLA, which is a legal entity distinct from its members, could not be said to have the necessary expertise.
Leslie Thomas KC, counsel for GLA, argued in essence that having regard to the authorities in the Caribbean and in England, the trial judge had not misdirected himself when he ruled the issue of standing should be determined at trial.
Leslie Thomas KC highlighted that when the issue of standing is not clear cut, the judges can use their discretion to make a ruling on standing after hearing the substantive claim at trial. And, on the evidence before the court, GLA had standing to bring the action because:
(1) it was adversely impacted in its corporate functioning as the appropriate information was not recorded in the public register as required by section 69 of the Physical Planning and Development Control Act 2016; and
(2) it satisfies the requirements under CPR 56.2(2)(d) as a: “body or group that can show that the matter is of public interest and that the body or group possesses expertise in the subject matter of the application.”.
In short, GLA has shown, as Leslie Thomas KC argued, that the case is about a matter of public interest and that it has expertise in the subject matter through its membership. He also noted that the standard or threshold of standing is usually a low or liberal one on these matters.
GLA is very grateful that Leslie Thomas KC has agreed to support our local legal team and to represent GLA in this matter pro bono. He continues to support environmental and human rights cases in the region and abroad.
The Judges on Panel 2 of the Court of Appeal were Her Ladyship Mrs Gertel Thom and His Lordships Mr Davidson Baptiste and Mr Dexter Theodore KC ( Ag.).
The PDA was represented by Crown Counsel Ms Caryn Adams of the Attorney General’s Chambers, The Hartman Group by Danny Williams and Co. and Mr Hylton, KC, Singapore Heng Sheng by Grant Joseph & Co. and Mr John Carrington KC, and Range by Ramdhanni & Associates.
We look forward to the Judge’s decision on this important matter.
Grenada Land Actors