Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal - March and April 2021

Permission to Appeal - March and April 2021

Case Name	Justices	PTA	Reasons given
Inter Continental Trading Company Ltd (Appellant) v CL Financial Ltd (In Liquidation) (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) JCPC 2020/0050	Lord Briggs Lord Leggatt Lord Stephens	Refused 29 March 2021	Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law. This was not an appeal from a final decision. There is no appeal as of right. The appeal is also devoid of merit, and raises no point of general public importance.
Indar (Respondent) v Rajkumar (Appellant) (Trinidad & Tobago) JCPC 2020/0006 Indar (Respondent) v Rajkumar (Appellant) No 2 (Trinidad and Tobago) JCPC 2020/0032	Lord Briggs Lord Leggatt Lord Stephens	Refused 29 March 2021	Permission to appeal be refused because the applications do not raise an arguable point of law which ought to be considered by the Judicial Committee at this time. The outcome of the appeal did not depend upon the decision of the Court of Appeal to depart from Bonnard v Perryman. The other grounds of appeal are devoid of merit.
Fangamar (Appellant) v The State of Mauritius and another (Respondents) (Mauritius) JCPC 2020/0054	Lord Lloyd-Jones Lord Hamblen Lord Burrows	Refused 30 March 2021	Permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law. The appeal is wholly devoid of merit and has no prospect of success.
Reddi (Appellant) v Minister of Health and Wellness and others (Respondents) (Mauritius) JCPC 2021/0026	Lord Reed Lord Hodge Lord Lloyd-Jones	Refused 19 April 2021	Permission to appeal be refused for special leave, on the ground that, even on the assumption that the Board has jurisdiction, it would not be possible for it to hear an appeal before the quarantine period had ended. In those circumstances, any appeal should be heard by the Supreme Court in its appellate jurisdiction in the ordinary way.
In the following cases, the advice which the Board proposes to give to Her Majesty is as indicated below
Cabinet of the Cayman Islands and another (Respondents) v Roulstone (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) JCPC 2020/0060	Lord Reed Lord Sales Lord Leggatt	Refused 28 April 2021	Permission to appeal should be refused on the ground that the appeal does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance that the Board should consider at this time
AW Holding Corp and another (Respondents) v HM Receiver General (on behalf of the Crown) (Appellant) (Guernsey) JCPC 2020/0039	Lord Hodge Lord Briggs Lady Arden	Granted 28 April 2021	N/A
Ariste (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Bahamas) JCPC 2019/0010	Lord Hodge Lady Arden Lord Hamblen	Granted 28 April 2021	N/A
Arklow Investments Ltd and another (Appellants) v I.D. Maclean and others (Respondents) (New Zealand) JCPC 2020/0042	Lord Hodge Lady Arden Lord Hamblen	Refused 28 April 2021	Permission to appeal should be refused because the Appellant has not shown exceptional circumstances to merit the re-opening of the Board's ruling which it made 21 years ago. Further, the Appellant has proferred no evidence in support of his allegations or explained why those allegations could not have been made many years ago. In those circumstances the appeal would be an abuse of process.
Edwards (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) (Jamaica) JCPC 2019/0097	Lord Lloyd-Jones Lord Hamblen Lord Burrows	Granted 28 April 2021	N/A
Hall (Appellant) v Her Majesty's Attorney General (Respondent) (Isle of Man) JCPC 2020/0040	Lord Briggs Lord Leggatt Lord Stephens	Refused 28 April 2021	Permission to appeal should be refused because there is no risk that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. Sentencing is pre-eminently a matter for the Isle of Man Courts.