Commission's recommendation to fire her.

Elmina Verlice Darrell, who was a domestic supervisor, was fired for "committing an offence against discipline'' after she was involved in a fight with another staff member.

Mrs. Darrell was also convicted in Magistrates' Court of "occasioning actual bodily harm'' against the staff member. And she was bound over to keep the peace for a year.

But before Mrs. Darrell was convicted, the commission appointed a tribunal to hear evidence relating to the discipline charge. The tribunal declined to hear evidence on issues which had been decided by the Magistrate.

After gathering evidence, the tribunal found Mrs. Darrell was guilty of and admitted the charge of assault; failed in her duties as a supervisor by her mishandling of the situation on June 19, 1991; and the other staff member "by her actions at the time and previous provocative remarks and actions'' provoked Mrs. Darrell to commit the offence.

Considering the tribunal's report, the commission recommended to the Governor that Mrs. Darrell be dismissed.

The recommendation was "reluctantly'' accepted and Mrs. Darrell was fired.

She then applied to the Supreme Court to have the tribunal and the commission's recommendation set aside.

But the Chief Justice, the Hon. Sir James Astwood refused to have this done.

And Mrs. Darrell took her case to the Court of Appeal.

But in a written judgment, the high court said Mrs. Darrell's application to the Supreme Court came too late and Sir James was right to refuse it.

It also ruled that the tribunal ".. . reasonably found that she had failed in her duty as a supervisor''.

The court noted that it was "significant that his Excellency himself made representations on her behalf and only with reluctance accepted the recommendation of the Commission after it had been reconsidered by the Commission''.

But it concluded: "We see no ground upon which the tribunal can be adversely criticised in the discharge of its functions''.

In a separate written judgment, the court explained that it upheld objectors' appeal against the MarketPlace's liquor licence application because the MarketPlace admitted it "could not effectively control the actions outside their premises of persons who had purchased liquor from them''; the Chief Justice "erred'' in concluding that the Liquor Licensing Authority acted unfairly toward the MarketPlace; and the Chief Justice heard the MarketPlace appeal in the absence of objectors.