Tonga's Court of Appeal has granted John Cauchi leave for a judicial review and directed a Judicial Appointments and Discipline Panel to consider his complaints.

The former Attorney General, Cauchi, appealed against a decision made by a Judicial Appointments and Discipline Panel not to hear his complaint against a former Chief Justice, in a trial for damages he brought against the Kingdom of Tonga in 2013.

Cauchi's appeal was one of 10 cases that received judgement in the first session of Tonga's Court of Appeal, which ended on 31 March.

The Appeal judges in their decision concluded that the panel was under a misapprehension of the position concerning appeal to the Appeal Court and should not have dismissed Cauchi’s complaint as prematurely made.

The court also granted Cauchi leave for judicial review of the panel’s decision at the Supreme Court, which was initially declined by Mr Justice Cato.

“Justice Cato was similarly in error in refusing leave for judicial review of the panel’s decision. We set aside his decision, grant leave for judicial review of the decision and direct the panel to proceed to consider Cauchi’s complaints.”

This all arose from a trial of an action brought by Cauchi against the Kingdom of Tonga for wrongful dismissal from his position of Attorney General, which is still ongoing. 

The trial began on 9 November 2013 and on 26 November, Cauchi applied for the jury to be discharged.

The court said the Chief Justice acceeded to that application and on January 13, 2014 gave out his written reasons for making the order to discharge the jury.

The appellant had then objected to the events that led to the order (not the order itself) and the reasons given by the judge.

“The issue of this appeal is whether the Supreme Court correctly determined that Cauchi should not be granted leave to review the decision of the panel,” said the court.

The panel had dismissed hearing his complaint against Chief Justice Scott for alleged breach of judicial oath arising from the action. 

Cauchi then filed leave for judicial review of the panel’s decision at the Supreme Court.

Justice Cato in declining the application said the complaint to the panel was involved principally with the propriety of the Chief Justice’s ruling and his interpretations of provisions of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court Act, and such issues could only properly be decided by the Appeal Court. The panel was right to consider it was premature to entertain his complaints, he said.

The Appeal judges in allowing the appeal set aside Justice Cato's costs decision and awarded Cauchi his costs on the judicial review application at the Supreme Court and in in this court.