The Corporation of Hamilton has failed to overturn a court judgment that declared rules governing vehicle clamping in the city were invalid because they had never been properly published.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the Municipalities (Hamilton Pay and Display Parking Vehicle Clamping) Ordinance 2007 never came into force because it was never published and was never laid before Parliament.

The judgment brings to an end a four-year saga over the corporation’s right to fine clamped drivers and still leaves the door open to potential refund claims from those who paid for their vehicles to be freed.

Mayor of Hamilton Charles Gosling told The Royal Gazette that the council had met with Michael Dunkley and Trevor Moniz, the Attorney-General, this week to look at how the ordinance process could be made more efficient.

“One positive coming out of the appeal was the opposing counsel’s statement recognising that the corporation is entitled to enforce parking regulations through clamping, it is just the means by which we take that action,” Mr Gosling said. “The ordinances under question did not go through the prescribed process.

“The corporation has recently approved a Traffic Ordinance 2017 and is before the Minister for Municipalities and the AG for their approval, which we hope presents the proper means. If this is indeed the case, then we could expect the Ordinance to be presented to Parliament in the next session.

“We had a very productive meeting with the Premier and the Attorney-General on Monday outlining what needs to be achieved through the ordinance procedure and are looking at possible changes or even new legislation to help speed up this process without losing oversight or notice to the public.”

In November 2014 Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled the corporation did not have the power to clamp vehicles illegally parked in the city because the 2007 Ordinance had never been properly published, as required by law.

The effect of this failure, which was first highlighted by the Centre for Justice, meant members of the public were never made aware of the scope of the wheel clamping policy or how it could affect them. The corporation appealed against the Chief Justice’s ruling, but last week that appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal judges stated: “The Municipalities Act 1923 by section 38 provides for the corporation a clear procedure for the making and amendment of Ordinances for the regulation and control of off-street and on-street parking.

“Ordinances are statutory instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act 1977 and accordingly the procedure for making statutory instruments applies. Where the Ordinance involves the levying of a charge, the affirmative resolution procedures applies.

“The 2007 Ordinance never came into force because it was never published and was never laid before Parliament. The same is true of the 2010 Ordinance.

“The position was put beyond doubt by the 2013 Act but in truth neither Ordinance was ever effective. It was not open to the corporation to proceed by Resolution as the corporation has no statutory power to regulate or control parking by section 20 of the 1923 Act or otherwise apart from by the Ordinance procedure under section 38. I would dismiss the corporation’s appeal.”

During the appeal the corporation’s legal team maintained that a notice appearing in the Bermuda Sun in 2007 amounted to sufficient publication to meet the requirements of both Acts. But the Attorney-General chambers said the notice was not publication of the 2007 Ordinance itself, of which it made no mention. Furthermore they contended that it did not notify the public where the full text of the Ordinance could be seen.