Speaker of the House of Assembly Hon Julian Willock’s (right) notice of discontinuance in both appeals to the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the matter against Hon Mark H. Vanterpool (R4) (left) were accepted by the Court today, July 17, 2019. Photo: VINO/File

Attorney Ramlogan SC (in photo), appearing for Speaker Hon Julian Willock, successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that there should be no order as to costs on the appeal against the judicial review case filed by Hon Mark H. Vanterpool. Photo: Trinidad & Tobago Guardian/File

The appeals filed by Speaker of the House of Assembly Hon. Julian Willock against the decision of Justice Ann-Marie Smith for Hon Mark H. Vanterpool (R4) to be sworn in as a member of the House of Assembly came up for hearing this morning Wednesday July 17, 2019 before the Court of Appeal. Photo: GIS/File

On June 17, 2019, Hon Willock, though his attorneys, had pulled the plug on the appeal. 

Matters still in court for cost 

The Hon Speaker had filed two appeals and were both dealt with by the court. The first appeal was against the decision of Justice Smith to award no costs to Government, even though they had successfully objected to Vanterpool’s claim for judicial review and the court upheld the submissions made by Willock’s lead Attorney Anand Ramlogan SC and dismissed the claim. The second appeal related to the decision of Justice Smith in favour of Vanterpool’s swearing-in.

Mr Willock’s notice of discontinuance in both appeals was accepted by the Court. Mr  Vanterpool’s Attorney, Patrick D. Thompson indicated that they were seeking an order against the Speaker for him to pay Vanterpool’s legal costs.

Mr Ramlogan, appearing for the Speaker, told the Court that there should be no order as to costs on the appeal against the judicial review case because Mr Willock was successful in that matter and Mr Vanterpool’s claim for judicial review was dismissed.

The court noted that Justice Smith had made no order for costs and maintained that position to respect to the discontinued appeal. The Court, therefore, made an order bringing that appeal to closure by making no order as to costs on the discontinued appeal.

A blow for Hon Vanterpool

The matter was stood down for the lawyers to hold discussions to see if the matter could be resolved; however, the court was later advised that the matter could not be amicably resolved because Mr Vanterpool was insisting he be paid his legal costs.

Mr Ramlogan told the court that it should adopt a similar position as to costs on this appeal as well and that he was not prepared to concede any liability for costs against the Speaker.

Mr Thompson argued that Mr Vanterpool was entitled to his costs because the Speaker had discontinued the appeal and drew reference to the Court Rules. Justice of Appeal Courtenay told Thompson that he was “on second base” when Mr Ramlogan was asking the Court to hear him at “first base” because he was questioning Mr Vanterpool’s entitlement to any costs.

The Court agreed with Mr Ramlogan that it would be more prudent to await the final decision of Justice Smith on the issue of costs in the matter in which Mr Vanterpool was successful as that decision and the reasons for it may have an impact on the approach that the parties and the Court of Appeal may adopt on the outstanding issues of costs of the appeal.

Court of Appeal sides with Hon Speaker

The Court, therefore, made a formal order that the Appeals be discontinued but refused to make any order for costs in Mr Vanterpool’s favour.

It instead granted both parties liberty to apply upon receipt of the costs order and reasons of Justice Smith if necessary.

Attorney General wanted out!

The Attorney General (AG), Baba F. Aziz's attorney, Mrs Giselle Jackson-Lumi, applied to have the AG excused from any further participation and attendance because he was not seeking any order for costs.

Although the Court initially granted this application, Mr Ramlogan pointed out that this was a constitutional claim and that the AG was a proper party under the constitution and hence, it would not be appropriate for the AG to be relieved from the appeal as the State may yet incur liability. 

The President of the Court, Madam Justice of Appeal Blenman, asked Mrs Lumi whether it was possible to have a constitutional claim without the Attorney General as a party, to which she responded “No”.

In light of this concession, the Court thanked Mr Ramlogan SC for his observation and revised its earlier ruling and directed that the AG remain a party to the proceedings.

The House of Assembly is being represented by Veritas Law.