Barbuda Light and Power Company Ltd v Hewlett et Al

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Louisy J.
• Judgment Date: 29 March 1972
• Neutral Citation: AG 1972 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 40 of 1970
• Date: 29 March 1972

High Court of Justice

Louisy, J.

No. 40 of 1970

Barbuda Light and Power Co. Ltd.

and

Hewlett et al

Tribunal - Commission of Inquiry Act, Cap. 305 — Companies Act, s. 95–100 — Whether the commission of inquiry was null and void.

Injunction - Interlocutory Injunction — Commission of Inquiry Act, Cap. 305 — Companies Act, s. 95–100 — Whether an injunction should be granted preventing a Commission of Inquiry from investigating the plaintiff company.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the Governor appointed a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the plaintiff company.

Facts: Under the Commission of Inquiry Act, Cap. 305 the Governor was empowered to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to look into matters affecting the Welfare of the public and this could include some private matters.

Held: The Governor was empowered under the Commission of Inquiry Act to look into matters affecting the public welfare and this would include some private matters. The Commission of Inquiry not null and void.

Held: In the circumstances there was no serious issue to be tried and therefore the injunction was refused.

Louisy J.

1 This is an application on the part of the Plaintiff to restrain the defendants from continuing to hold an inquiry and to take evidence in the matter of a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Governor on the 17 ^th February, 1972, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap. 305, section 2.

2 The application is supported by an affidavit of McChesney George, the Managing Director of the Plaintiff Company and it reads as follows:

• 1. I am the Managing Director of the plaintiff company.

• 2. The writ in this action is endorsed with a statement of claim which, inter alia asks for an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing to act under the commission therein mentioned.

• 3. The defendants were served with the writ on the 26 ^th day and 28 ^th days if February, 1972, and they have entered a conditional appearance but they nevertheless continued the inquiry which they commenced on the 23 ^rd day of February, 1972, although the matter is now sub-judice.

• 4. The defendants have sat on several occasions examining the official records if Government departments and, in particular, the Treasury relating to transactions with the plaintiff and its documents of incorporation (all of which are public matters) but on the 6 ^th day of March, 1972, a summons was issued a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked “X” for the appearance of the witness therein named on the 8 ^th day of March 1972 before the defendants to give evidence.

• 5. The said witness appeared as direct and was asked and answered questions relating to the number of meetings of the Board of the plaintiff; the manner in which the meetings were conducted; the manner and form of the records of its decisions; the names and descriptions of persons present; the amount of fees received by the directors; the manner in which the plaintiff raised its capital and what was done with the money so raised; all of which constitute matters relating to the internal management of the plaintiff's affairs.

• 6. The meetings of the defendants are held in public and some of the matters given in evidence were published as news through the information media of the Government of Antigua.

• 7. Unless restrained the defendants intend to continue the inquiry and thus adversely affect in advance any rights which the Court may declare in favor of the plaintiff on the hearing of the section.

• 8. I am informed by the Registrar's office, and verily believe, that the Hounorable the Resident Puisne Judge is due to go...