Ogle Airport Inc. v Competition and Consumer Affairs Commission

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Anderson,Mr Justice D Barrow,Burgess,Barrow
• Judgment Date: 09 November 2020
• Date: 09 November 2020
• Docket Number: CCJ Application No. GYCV2020/007
• Court: Caribbean Court of Justice

[2020] CCJ 19 (AJ) GY

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Appellate Jurisdiction

Before

the Honourables: Mr Justice W Anderson, JCCJ

Mr Justice D Barrow, JCCJ

Mr Justice A Burgess, JCCJ

CCJ Application No. GYCV2020/007

GY Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2013

Between

Ogle Airport Inc.

Applicant

and

Competition and Consumer Affairs Commission

Respondent

Appearances

Mr Timothy Jonas for the Applicant/Intended Appellant

Mr Teni Housty for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

of

The Honourable Justices Anderson, Barrow and Burgess

Delivered by

The Honourable Mr Justice D Barrow

on the 9 th day of November, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICES Anderson, Barrow AND Burgess

1 This application by Ogle Airport Incorporated (“Ogle”) for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal is dismissed for the reason that such an appeal would be purely academic.

Complaint

2 In the High Court, Ogle brought judicial review proceedings against the Competition and Fair Trading Commission (“the Commission”) in connection with a complaint made to the Commission by a third party, Air Services Ltd (“Air Services”), a local aircraft operator. Air Services complained to the Commission that Ogle, the operator of an airport on land leased from the State, had acted in a manner prohibited by the Competition and Fair Trading Act 1 (“the Act”). The Commission, having decided it would hear the complaint, in a letter to Ogle rejected the latter's written challenge that it did not control the percentage of market share that gave jurisdiction to the Commission to investigate the complaint. The Commission stated the factual basis on which it relied to conclude that Ogle controlled the statutorily prescribed percentage that gave the Commission jurisdiction. Shortly after conveying that response, the Commission informed Ogle that it would consider the merits of Air Services' complaint, and that a report containing the Commission's reasoned decision would be made available to all the parties on or before 20 January 2012.

3 Before that date, Ogle filed its application for Judicial Review challenging the decisions of the Commission that it had jurisdiction and that it would decide the complaint without having first afforded a fair hearing to Ogle. Chang CJ promptly heard the application on its merits and delivered a written judgment quashing the decision of the Commission to adjudicate the complaint without having afforded Ogle a fair hearing. The Chief Justice, however, declined to grant relief on the further ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. He decided that the court could not interfere with the Commission's determination that it had jurisdiction except on very strong grounds based on compelling evidence that showed the determination to be so aberrant as to be irrational. He found no such evidence had been adduced and, therefore, declined to base his decision to quash the Commission's proceedings on the further ground of lack of jurisdiction.

4 On 4 September 2020, the Court of Appeal dismissed Ogle's...