Environment Minister and their neighbour.

The written judgment, delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice DaCosta, signified an end to a three-year planning battle between Mr. and Mrs. Charles Green and their neighbour Mr. Peter Darling.

Mr. Darling appealed to Environment Minister the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto after the Development Applications Board rejected his proposal to add on a single-storey bathroom that would have touched the wall dividing his property from the Greens'.

The Greens objected to the plan, but Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto granted the appeal.

The Greens then took their appeal to the Supreme Court complaining that the Environment Minister had toured the site on Salt Kettle Lane and spoken to Mr.

Darling in their absence.

While Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood decided in favour of the Greens, he did not say the Minister committed any impropriety.

However, he said, she "must be seen and be perceived to be acting fairly''.

Sir James sent the matter back to the Minister for a rehearing.

But the Greens appealed that part of his decision, while Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto appealed the entire decision.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, the Hon. Mr. Justice Huggins said there was no evidence that Mr. Darling accompanied the Minister during her visit to the site.

He also said there was no reason why the Minister should have given the Greens' notice "as the purpose of her visit was not to receive representation from any party''.

"The appellants did not know all the facts and they assumed the worst,'' he wrote, adding that it was fair to say "little was done to allay their suspicions''.

Mr. Huggins said he would allow Mr. Darling's cross appeal and restore the Minister's decision.

While finding that the Minister did not act with bias in her decision, the Hon. Mr. Justice Henry said the appellants ought to have been at least made aware of any representation made to the Minister and given the opportunity to respond to them.

"In my view, in making the site inspection in the absence of one of the parties to the appeal and in further failing to make the appellants aware of the matters brought to her attention during the course of that inspection, the Minister was acting contrary to the principles reflected in the rules and to the principles of natural justice,'' he wrote.

"...what I consider has been shown, is not actual bias by the Minister but conduct giving rise to a reasonable suspicion or appearance of bias,'' Mr.

Henry said. "But in any event as the law stands an order for rehearing can only be for rehearing by the Minister.

"It cannot be appropriate in this case simply to set aside the Minister's order on appeal since to do so would effectively be to close the avenue of appeal to the party aggrieved by the Board's decision.

"In my view the Chief Justice was clearly correct in ordering a rehearing of the appeal from the Board's decision. I would therefore dismiss the appeal.'' Lawyers for the Minister, the Greens, and Mr. Darling were Mr. Philip Holder, Mr. Robin McMillan, and Mr. Jeffrey Elkinson, respectively.