According to Grand Court documents stamped on June 12, 2024, the Hon. Justice Marlene I. Carter granted leave to apply for judicial review to Howard Antony Barrocks to challenge the decision of the Director of the Workplace Opportunities and Residency Cayman (WORC) refusing Barrocks’ application to permanently reside in the Cayman Islands as the surviving spouse of a Caymanian (the “Decision”). Barrocks reportedly wants the Decision to be set aside on the grounds that it was unlawful, irrational, disproportionate and unreasonable.
Based on the facts, Barrocks married a Caymanian on June 24, 2021.
Following her unfortunate passing on April 14, 2023, Barrocks submitted an application in July 2023 for “Permanent Residency under section 28 (8) of the Immigration (Transition) Act (2022 Revision) on the ground that the marriage had subsisted for less than seven (7) years, and he was a surviving spouse of a Caymanian.”
However, the Director of WORC reportedly refused Barrocks’ application on December 19, 2023, on the basis that at the time of his wife’s passing, the “marriage was not intact.”
Concerning this, Barrocks alleges that, based on information he found on his deceased wife’s computer, she contacted WORC and told them false information about him. He claims that no one from WORC has contacted him to hear his side of the story.
In addition to this issue, the Court considered whether his Court filing was out of time.
Regarding this, the Court said:
The Applicant did not seek leave of the Court to file the application for leave out of time, nor did the application address the need for good reason why the application was not filed in time.
Without some reason being advanced before this Court, there was nothing upon which the Court could make an assessment of whether “good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made” existed.
While the Court “was minded to deny the application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the circumstances, the Court heard the legal counsel explain the reason for the filing delay.
It is important to note that the court documents indicate that counsel took a different view, i.e., the application for leave to apply for judicial review was filed on time.
Concerning this, the judge said:
While the Court is not without sympathy for the Applicant’s distress following the passing of his wife, this, in and of itself, is not good reason for the delay in filing the application for leave for judicial review so as to cause the Court to exercise its discretion under O. 53 r. 4 (1).
The application for leave is grounded on the Applicant having not been afforded the opportunity to respond to statements and matters considered by the Director before the Decision was issued.
In considering whether to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the Court must determine whether the Applicant has satisfied the Court that “there is some arguable case or claim which is not obviously untenable, vexatious or frivolous.”
The judge added:
The Applicant has satisfied the Court that there is an arguable case that the Decision was unreasonable in that the Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard.
The Decision, the nature of which will affect his ability to work and remain on the Islands, was made without recourse to him and so without having taken into account matters which may have been relevant to the Director’s ultimate determination. The case is not one that is obviously untenable, vexatious or frivolous.
The judge concluded:
The nature of the application, the finding of this Court that the case is not one which is obviously untenable, vexatious or frivolous, coupled with the reasons advanced for delay, are sufficient for this Court to find that the application for leave should be granted.
The Court makes the following orders:
(i) The application for leave to file for judicial review is granted.
(ii) Pursuant to O. 53, r.5 (9), the Applicant is to serve copies of the Originating Motion, the affidavits in support, the Order for leave and the Form 53 application upon the Respondents within seven (7) days of the date of the Order.
(iii) The Respondent shall have leave to apply.
