Judgments are pronouncements by the courts that are binding on the parties involved. So, what happens if someone who should be bound by a judgment is left out of the lawsuit?
That was the question faced by the Court of Appeal in the case Environmental Landscapes Consortium Limited vs Information and Data Protection Commissioner et, decided on July 30, 2024.
The case began through a freedom of information request (FOI request) filed by an individual, Mr X, seeking a copy of an agreement between Environmental Landscapes Consortium Limited and the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure in 2015.
The request was refused, so Mr X lodged a complaint with the Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC).
The IDPC ruled in his favour and ordered the publication of the contract. This led the Environmental Landscapes Consortium to file court proceedings against the IDPC and the ministry to have that decision annulled.
Judgement was delivered in favour of Environmental Landscapes Consortium at first instance.
The IDPC appealed and the Court of Appeal realised that Mr X, the original complainant who had a vested interest in the annulment of the decision, was not involved in the lawsuit. He was only asked to testify and made two appearances.
The Court of Appeal had to ask itself: Should he have been involved? And if so, what happens next?
After much deliberation, the Court of Appeal decided these two questions as follows:
In the first place, Mr X should have been involved in the lawsuit before the courts because the original decision by the IDPC was delivered in a case instituted by him against the ministry. Therefore, that decision could never be annulled without Mr X being a party to the judgment that annuls it.
The Court of Appeal then went on to conclude that, since Mr X had been absent from the court proceedings, the judgment delivered had to be annulled and given again, this time with Mr X as a party to the suit.
Why?
Because the annulled judgment would only be effective between the parties to the lawsuit – and not Mr X. As far as he was concerned, the decision upholding his FOI request remained valid and he could not be legally constrained to not reap its benefits. Hence the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which annulled a decision obtained following proceedings instituted by him, could not be enforced against him: it was equally alive (for Mr X) and dead (for the other three parties) at the same time.
The Court of Appeal, which cannot allow unenforceable judgments to remain in existence, was left with no option but to point this fact out when the appeal came before it and send the case back before the Court of First Instance for Mr X to be roped into the suit and a decision given anew.
David Chetcuti Dimech is a Junior Associate at AB&A Advocates.