An attorney who said she was wrongly fired from her position as chief magistrate of Montserrat has lost her case for judicial review after a judge said she was never appointed to the role.
Juliet Johnson Clarke sought financial damages and costs from Governor Sarah Tucker for what she called an “irrational, unreasonable and procedurally unfair” termination by letter.
However, Justice Brian Cottle said the claimant acted unreasonably in bringing the application for judicial review to Montserrat High Court and ordered her to pay EC$10,000 in costs.
The matter went to court over several dates beginning on 12 June, 2024, and the acting high court judge detailed the case in a written judgment, published on 7 March.
“In my view there is no basis to support a claim for breach of contract by reason of any administrative action by the governor,” he wrote.
“Once the factual matrix is appreciated, the claim falls away. One cannot seek judicial review of an action which did not occur.”
Official employment
In his judgment, Cottle explained that Johnson Clarke was offered employment as chief magistrate of Montserrat by letter on 30 October, 2023.
The offer letter was subject to terms and conditions being agreed between the parties, and some of those terms were set out in the letter.
There was no fixed date at which the employment of the claimant would begin, but there was a suggested or proposed start date of 15 December, 2023, the judge wrote.
The claimant travelled to Montserrat in December 2023 to find that the incumbent chief magistrate remained in her post, as her term of office was set to end on 31 January, 2024.
Johnson Clarke was informed that her employment could not take effect until 1 February, 2024, to allow for the chief magistrate’s employment contract to come to an end.
At the beginning of February 2024, the claimant met with Governor Sarah Tucker who said that she had received information that had raised questions as to her suitability for the role.
However, the governor offered to appoint her as senior magistrate for the month of February 2024 to evaluate her performance with a view to then be appointed as chief magistrate, the judge said.
Terminated
The claimant took the oath of office as senior magistrate but did not carry out the associated duties, the judge said.
On 28 February, 2024, the governor wrote to the claimant enquiring why she had not taken the opportunity to demonstrate her competence as a judicial officer.
She said she was willing to appoint her again for March to allow her performance to be evaluated, however, the following day Johnson Clarke declined, the judge wrote.
The claimant denied she had agreed to be appointed as senior magistrate and said she was only prepared to serve as chief magistrate for two years.
“That denial is at odds with the fact that she took the oath of office as senior magistrate. She subscribed to the oath after she had sworn,” Cottle said.
The governor again wrote to Johnson Clarke on 13 March, 2024, asking for reasons why her engagement should not be terminated.
The claimant responded two days later asking for additional time to answer, and requesting to have the source of information that had caused the governor concern about her appointment.
On 25 March, the governor wrote back to the claimant, terminating her employment and providing her with three month’s salary, the judge said.
Never appointed
The judge concluded: “On these undisputed facts, it is clear that the claimant was never appointed to the post of chief magistrate.
“She was given a conditional letter of offer. She was expected to provide references who could attest to her suitability to be appointed as chief magistrate.
“None had been provided at the time the claimant purported to accept the offer of employment as chief magistrate.”
He said that when the concerns as to her suitability for office came to the attention of the governor, they were raised with the claimant.
Cottle stressed that Johnson Clarke agreed to the offer of appointment as senior magistrate for one month and and took the oath of office.
“This action clearly showed that she treated the offer of employment as chief magistrate as having been withdrawn pending her demonstration of fitness for the position,” he said.
“It must be kept in mind that the claimant is an experienced attorney. She was seeking appointment as a judicial officer.
“She must have appreciated that by consenting to be appointed as senior magistrate, she was also agreeing that any previous agreement to be appointed as chief magistrate was thereby vitiated.”
