|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Chagos Islanders v Attorney Generall & Anor  EWCA Civ 997 (22 July 2004)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 997
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE OUSELEY)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
LORD JUSTICE NEUBERGER
| CHAGOS ISLANDERS
|- and -
|THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HER MAJESTY'S BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY COMMISSIONER
Mr John Howell QC, Mr Rhodri Thompson QC and Mr Kieron Beal (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondents/Defendants
Hearing date: Thursday 17 June 2004
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Sedley :
"In consideration of the compensation paid to me by the Ilois Trust Fund and of my settlement in Mauritius … I renounce to all claims, present or future, that I may have against the government of the United Kingdom, the Crown in the right of the United Kingdom, the Crown in right of any British possession, their servants, agents or contractors …."
in respect of actions which, it is realistically accepted on behalf of the applicants, form the basis of the current claims. The Trust Fund was established by a Mauritian statute, and was endowed principally by the United Kingdom government. In Permal -v- Ilois Trust Fund  MR 65 at 70, the Supreme Court of Mauritius held that an individual Ilois had
"a cause of action under the [Ilois Trust Fund] Act  in Mauritius [against the Trust Fund] so as to avail himself of the remedy there provided as a statutory alternative to any other course of action in the United Kingdom … against the United Kingdom authorities that he might also possess".
i) It is an abuse for the defendants to raise the issue in these proceedings, given that they failed to raise it in Bancoult;
ii) It is and was not open to the defendants to contend that the Ilois could compromise or renounce "their fundamental and constitutional rights".
We do not consider that either of these propositions is tenable.
"There is a significant difference between saying that a claim for compensation, made after a final settlement has been reached, is an abuse, and saying that an application for Judicial Review to determine the validity of legislation in force is an abuse of process."
The causes of action
Misfeasance in public office
i) allegedly deceitful representations made to the claimants;
ii) allegedly deceitful representations made to third parties.
"that it is arguable that false statements were knowingly made to third parties about the status of the Ilois as residents of Chagos, but with the intent that these third parties should act on them, rather than communicate them to the Ilois, who would have known that the statements were untrue. They may have been intended [to] persuade those third parties to do nothing to investigate or assist the Ilois or to reduce opposition to the defendants' defence policies."
The Mauritius Constitution
ii) disability; and
It is relevant that, this not being an action in respect of defamation or malicious falsehood (cf s.32A), and the judge's rejection of any possibility of enlargement of time in relation to personal injury (cf. s.33) being now unchallenged, the court has no residual discretionary power to enlarge time.