Ottavio Lavaggi Claimant v The Physical Planning and Development Board Defendant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Alleyne J.
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] ECSC J0613-4
• Docket Number: CIVIL SUIT NO. SVGHCV0184 / 2003
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Date: 13 June 2003

[2003] ECSC J0613-4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL SUIT NO. SVGHCV0184 / 2003

Between:

In the Matter of the Town and Country Planning Act 1992

In the Matter of the Application by Ottavio Lavaggi for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Ottavio Lavaggi

Claimant

and

The Physical Planning and Development Board

Defendant

RULING

Alleyne J.

1 Ottavio Lavaggi, a resident of the small Grenadine island of Bequia, has filed an application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision of the Physical Planning and Development Board to grant planning permission to Wireless Ventures (SVG) Ltd. (in fact the company's name is Wireless Ventures (St. Vincent) Ltd.) to erect a telecommunications tower at Friendship, Bequia, close to the boundary of hisproperty. Mr. Lavaggi also sought an interim order to stay the decision until the application for judicial review has been heard and determined on its merits.

2 On May 5^th, the court made an interim order granting Mr. Lavaggi leave to apply for judicial review of the order, and further granting an interim order to stay the decision of the Board until the application for judicial review has been heard and determined on its merits. Further orders were made and the matter was adjourned to May 22^nd for a first hearing. Mr. Lavaggi duly filed a claim for judicial review and the first hearing was held on May 22^nd. On that occasion the court directed, among other things, in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules 2000 ( CPR) Rule 56.11(2)(a) and (b) that Wireless Ventures (SVG) Ltd., now known to be Wireless Ventures (St. Vincent) Ltd., being a body appearing to have sufficient interest in the matter, should have an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings, and that they might make submissions by way of written brief and might make oral submissions at any hearing of the matter.

3 On June 4^th, Wireless Ventures (St. Vincent) Ltd. (hereafter Wireless Ventures) filed a Notice of Application seeking among other things

• (i) to be added as a party

• (ii) an order that the Claim Form fails to comply with the CPR

• (iii) an order that the Claim Form was defective and fatal ab initio

• (iv) an order that the Notice of Application seeking leave for judicial review was procedurally flawed

• (v) an order that the statement of claim be struck out for non compliance with the Rules

• (vi) an order that the interim order granted on 5^th May be set aside and/or varied on the ground of material non-disclosure

• (vii) a finding that the interim order amounted to a prohibitory injunction which severely prejudiced Wireless Ventures

• (viii) an order that the interim order is wrong in law

4 The application is supported by the affidavit of Susan Roberts, General Manager of Wireless Ventures.

5 At the hearing of the application on 12^th June, counsel for Mr. Lavaggi took objection to the right of Wireless Ventures to make the application, on the ground that Wireless Ventures is not a party to the proceedings and could not be named as a party, the proceedings being for judicial review and by its nature an action between the citizen and the State. Dr. Friday submitted that only a public body could be a defendant in judicial review proceedings, that Wireless Ventures, not being a public body, could not therefore be a defendant and is not competent to make the application before the court.

6 Counsel submitted that the rights of Wireless Ventures under the order of the court made on 22^nd May are limited to the rights set out in CPR Rule 56.11 and 56.13, i.e. the right to be heard, and the right to submit written briefs and to make oral submissions. The applicant Wireless Ventures has no sufficient standing to make the application. Counsel contended that R. 56.13 (3) does not apply to a...