Abstract
In the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, the Grand Court, purportedly applying the plain meaning rule, held that the Health Services Authority Law barred suits against government hospitals unless there was bad faith. Within about six weeks, the Government amended the provision to expressly add negligence as a ground of suit. An attempt to apply the amended legislation to the case that led to the amendment failed. This note examines whether the plain meaning rule was properly applied and the extent to which matters pending before courts and other public authorities can be affected by new legislation.
 Keywords: presumption against retrospectivity; transitional; procedural legislation; vested rights; pending; immediate effect; Hansard; retrospective; retroactive.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
