6/22/2023 0 Comments Actio pte. ltd.Houghton submits that public policy demands that the court not lend its assistance to a plaintiff who bases his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act. By reliance on the maxim of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, Mrs. That arrangement of sponsorship, as he understood it, was sufficient to render the local doctor, in this case himself, the “employer” within the meaning of the Law, especially in light of the fact that sponsorship was so well established and known to the immigration and health regulatory authorities of the Islands.ġ5 In summary, the challenge which has been raised involves the court having to decide whether the plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings as a chiropractor practising in the Cayman Islands should be disallowed on the basis that he had been practising on a work permit which was not in conformity with the Immigration Law and Directives. Lookloy understood it to be for the protection of the patients who might require a continuum of care. Franz Manderson, the Chief Immigration Officer, who had earlier testified to that effect-merely for the protection of the interests of the local doctors. Lookloy insisted-here in disagreement with Mr. For this arrangement, a “small fee” is charged as a means of ensuring that follow-up care is available to their patients whenever the overseas doctors are not present. He also spoke of his own knowledge of a long-standing practice of sponsorship by which doctors from overseas-whom he perceived would not otherwise be prepared to come to the Islands to practise-are allowed to work as sole practitioners in charge of their own practices, even while their work permits, as in the case of the plaintiff’s, are issued to and held by local doctors as their employers. Lookloy testified, confirming in substance what the plaintiff said. The defendant alleged that, as this arrangement was contrary to the Immigration Law and Directives, the plaintiff was precluded from recovering damages in respect of his practice in the Cayman Islands on the ground of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, and the present report is limited to the court’s ruling on this issue.ĩ Dr. However, the plaintiff had never been employed by Island Medical Centre but had worked as a sole practitioner at another practice, Island Chiropractic, in which he had bought a 50% share, paying a monthly fee to the principal of Island Medical Centre in return for his “sponsorship” in obtaining a work permit. The plaintiff, a Canadian national, had no work permit in his own right, but a permit had been issued to Island Medical Centre, a chiropractic business, as his employer, following representations by it to the Immigration Board that it employed the plaintiff. The plaintiff was riding his bicycle when he was struck by the defendant’s vehicle, sustaining an injury to his right wrist which prevented him from working in his field as a chiropractor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |