Juliet Joan Johnson Clarke v HE The Governor of Montserrat

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Cottle
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0306-2
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. MNIHCV 2024/0010

Between:

[1] Juliet Joan Johnson Clarke

Claimant

and

[1] HE The Governor of Montserrat

[2] The Attorney General of Montserrat

Respondents

CLAIM NO. MNIHCV 2024/0010

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Mr. David Dorsett for the Claimant

Ms. Renee Morgan for the Respondents

RULING

Cottle [AG.]:

1 The Claimant instituted this claim for judicial review. She complained that her termination of employment as Chief Magistrate of Montserrat was unfair. I set out here the relief she prayed for.

2 The Applicant applies for an administrative order for judicial review of the decision of the Governor and Government of Montserrat to terminate the Applicant's employment as Chief Magistrate by letter dated 25th March 2025 (sic)

3 Remedies and nature of relief sought:

• 1. A declaration that the decision of the 1st Respondent to terminate the employment of the Applicant as Chief Magistrate was irrational, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair.

• 2. A declaration that the decision of the 1st Respondent to terminate the employment of the Applicant as Chief Magistrate was unlawful on account of it being irrational, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair.

• 3. A declaration that the decision of the 1st Respondent to terminate the employment of the Applicant as Chief Magistrate was null and void and of no legal effect it being unlawful.

• 4. Damages including damages for breach of contract

• 5. Costs

• 6. Interest pursuant to section 7 of the Judgments Act.

• 7. All such remedies whatsoever as the Applicant may appear to be entitled to pursuant to section 20 of the Supreme Court Act.

4 As a preliminary point the Respondents sought to have the claim dismissed. They say that it is patent that there is no factual foundation to ground the claim.

5 As I understand the argument, the Respondents say that the claim presupposes that:

• 1. That as at March 25, 2024 the Claimant was employed by the Government of Montserrat as Chief Magistrate;

• 2. That as at March 25, 2024 the Claimant's employment was not terminable solely under the provisions of contract but subject to constitutional requirements of being for cause and procedurally fair.

6 The Respondents contend that neither is true and absent such a factual basis the claim falls away and should be dismissed.

7 The Claimant resists the application for summary determination of the claim for judicial review. Counsel for the Claimant says that this is not a case of appointment but rather a case of employment. While the Claimant was never appointed to the post of Chief Magistrate she was employed as Chief Magistrate. Facts are disputed and this is not an apt case for summary disposition.

8 Some background will assist to illuminate the dispute.

9 By letter of 30th October 2023, the Claimant was offered employment as Chief Magistrate. The offer letter was subject to terms and conditions being agreed between the parties. Some terms were set out in the letter. There was no fixed date at which the employment of the Claimant would commence though there was a suggested or proposed start date of 15th December 2023. Other terms were not set out. The Claimant travelled to Montserrat. The incumbent Chief Magistrate remained in post as her term of office was set to end on January 31st 2024. Once the Claimant had arrived on island in December 2023, she was informed that her employment as Chief Magistrate could not take efect until 1st February 2024, to allow for the contractual employment of the incumbent Chief Magistrate to come to an end. At the beginning of February 2024, the Claimant met with the first Defendant. The Claimant was informed that information reaching Her Excellency the Governor had raised questions as to the suitability of the Claimant for appointment as Chief Magistrate. The Governor offered to appoint the Claimant as Senior Magistrate for the month of February 2024 while the incumbent Chief Magistrate would remain in post. This would afford the opportunity to have the Claimant carry out duties as Senior Magistrate so her performance could be evaluated. Satisfactory performance as Senior Magistrate would allow for the Claimant to be then appointed as Chief Magistrate.

10 The Claimant took the oath of office as Senior Magistrate but did not carry out duties as Senior Magistrate. On February 28th, 2024, the Governor wrote to the Claimant enquiring why she had not availed herself of the agreed opportunity to demonstrate her competence as a judicial officer. The Governor also indicated that she was prepared to appoint the Claimant as Senior Magistrate for the month of March 2024 to allow her...