Bilika Simamba (Appellant) v Margaret Ramsay-Hale (Respondent) (Cayman Islands)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0071

Jurisdiction

Cayman Islands

Parties

Appellant(s)

Bilika Simamba

Respondent(s)

Margaret Ramsay-Hale

Issue

(1) Whether the omission of the Grand Court to place the Appellant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review on the public register was a violation of section 7 of the Constitution of the Cayman Islands Order 2009 and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (2) Whether the requirement of leave in respect of judicial review proceedings, but not in respect of other civil cases, is contrary to sections 1(2)(a), 7 and 16 of the Constitution of the Cayman Islands Order 2009 and Articles 6(1) and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (3) Whether, if it is established that the wrong authority made the original decision, leave to bring judicial review proceedings can still be refused. (4) Whether the ‘Simplex principle’ applies even if the wrong authority made the original decision.

Facts

The Appellant is a retired Cayman Islands Attorney at Law. On 6 March 2014, the Appellant issued proceedings in the Grand Court against the Health Services Authority for damages for medical negligence. Kawaley J delivered judgment on the matter on 17 June 2019 (“the June judgment”). It was held that the Appellant’s claims were bound to fail unless supported by further expert evidence, but that the Appellant should be given an opportunity to file such evidence. The Appellant did not file expert evidence within the permitted time, and so his claims were eventually struck out on that basis on 17 September 2020. The Appellant sought unsuccessfully to challenge Kawaley J’s decision of 17 June 2019 (and the consequent dismissal of his claims) in various sets of proceedings. On 2 December 2023, the Appellant filed a complaint under the Complaints Procedure promulgated by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (“the JLSC”). The complaint related to two passages in the June judgment which are said to contain deliberate untruths. The first alleged untruth was that Kawaley J lied about the Appellant’s request to appear by video-link. The second allegation was that Kawaley J deliberately misrepresented the Appellant’s legal submissions. Following a review by the Complaints Committee, on 15 February 2024 the Chief Justice informed the Appellant that the JLSC had accepted the Complaints Committee’s recommendation and that his complaint was summarily dismissed. On 20 February 2024, the Appellant filed an application to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands for leave to apply for judicial review of this decision. The Appellant relied on various grounds , including that: (i) the summary dismissal of the complaint was irrational because the evidence that Kawaley J had lied was such as to require a full investigation; (ii) it was the JLSC who purported to make the decision to dismiss the complaint, though the JLSC was not the proper decision-maker; (iii) the Complaints Procedure is procedurally unfair; and (iv) the Chief Justice and the JLSC acted in bad faith. On 27 December 2024, McCarthy J handed down judgment refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The Appellant made an application to the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against McCarthy J’s judgment. The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on 23 June 2026. The Appellant now seeks leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.