A High Court judge has struck out nearly half of the claims in a constitutional lawsuit brought by a retired judge against the Attorney General and a former chief justice, ruling that several allegations disclosed no reasonable grounds.
But though narrowed, the lawsuit by retired judge Dr Sonia Richards was allowed to proceed to trial.
In a 76-page ruling issued on Friday, Justice Shona Griffith ruled that her decision to dismiss the four claims against Sir Patterson Cheltenham and the AG showed no reasonable grounds for filing them.
The claims that will no longer stand against the two defendants are those alleging that the Attorney General and Sir Patterson – then as head of the judiciary – breached Dr Richards’ right to security of the person; breached her right to protection against inhuman and degrading treatment; her right to be properly considered for an extension of tenure; and her right not to be removed from office other than in accordance with sections 84(3) and 84(4) of the Constitution.
But Justice Griffith directed that the retired judge is now free to proceed with her lawsuit on the remaining claim that her right to security of tenure was breached, though not in relation to any allegation that she was removed from office.
The retired justice has also been given approval to pursue her claim that the attorney general and former chief justice contravened her right to the protection of the law; but the court ordered that the manner in which that breach is alleged to have arisen must first be pleaded.
Justice Griffith also paved the way for the retired justice to proceed on a defamation lawsuit. Here, there being three separate defamation claims and be pleaded separately.
The former judge is also allowed to be heard on the remaining two claims that her terms and conditions of employment were violated, as well as the duty of care in her employment.
At the same time, Justice Griffith ordered the claimant to amend her case by filing and serving a statement of claim, setting out her causes of action and relief sought from the court.
This statement of claim must be filed on or before September 30.
Justice Griffith ruled: “Subject to any further direction by the court to the contrary, the claimant’s affidavit filed on May 7, 2025 in support of the fixed date claim is permitted to stand and be used as evidence in support of her remaining constitutional claims, and her private law claims, as may be applicable,”
She also gave the defendants six weeks from receipt of service of the statement of claim to file a defence.
The judge said that the time for filing any reply to the defendants’ defence will be in accordance with the applicable rules.
Justice Griffith warned that failure to comply with any of the timelines may result in the striking out of the non-compliant party’s case, or the award of costs against that party.
She adjourned the hearing for case management and a further hearing at a date is to be set before a different judge.
Justice Griffith said lawyers for both parties reserve the right to be heard on costs in relation to the respective applications.
In her claim, the retired judge alleged that during her tenure on the bench several of her constitutional rights were breached; that she was defamed by the words and actions of her former boss; and that the State’s treatment of her was not only negligent but also breached the terms and conditions of her employment.
The claimant seeks damages for the alleged breaches of her constitutional rights, and damages for the alleged breaches of several private law rights she claims.
The retired judge is represented by Georgia Gibson-Henlin KC in association with Lalu Hanuman, Lemar Neal and Stepenie Williams. Roger Forde KC in association with Nicole Boyce and Rene Forde appeared for the defendants.
(EJ)
