Lawyers for Roulstone confirmed Monday that the chief justice had ruled in favour of a protective costs order, which will protect Roulstone from government should the court rule against her in the public interest judicial review of the referendum process and the need to ensure it is fair.

Kate McClymont from the local legal firm Broadhurst LLC, who is representing Roulstone, explained why her client made the application for the costs order.

“Ms Roulstone has brought this case, which involves a number of important constitutional issues, in the hope that it will facilitate a fair and effective referendum on an issue that will have a significant long-term environmental and economic impact on the Cayman Islands,” said McClymont.

“She has taken that step because she believes it is in the best interests of the people of the Cayman Islands to have these issues considered by the Court. The protective costs order will allow her to continue to pursue that goal without undue personal risk.”

The order comes ahead of the hearing later this month where the court will consider the concerns of Roulstone, in her capacity as a petition activist, over government’s handling of the question, campaign and other important elements, as well as the environmental issues raised by the National Trust for the Cayman Islands.

Securing a protective cost order was an important part of the judicial review process, given the massive public interest in this issue. It is also the first order of its kind in the Cayman Islands.

The lawyers said that without such a protective order, Roulstone could personally have been liable to pay the government’s cost if all of the arguments were defeated.

Government’s pursuit of litigants in human rights, constitutional and other legal cases is not uncommon.

Even after the courts found that the government was in violation of their human rights, the government is pursuing Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden for money, after the appeal court overturned the chief justice’s decision to legalise same-sex marriage in their case.

Government had also sought to get cash from the West Bay women who challenged its handling of the closure of the West Bay Road and the controversial Dart agreement, despite the significant public interest issue in that case. Fortunately, the chief justice stepped in, telling government that he would not award costs because of the chilling effect it might have on the public’s right to challenge its government in the courts.

But this time, regardless of the outcome, there is no risk to Roulstone, allowing the case to be fairly aired.

During the original hearing for a judicial review, the government did not dispute that this is a public interest case. At the conclusion of that hearing, Justice Tim Owen, who will hear the full review on 22 January, said that the case “plainly involves issues of great constitutional importance for the Cayman Islands, questions which have never been considered before because this is the first time that section 70 of the Constitution, which provides for a people-initiated referendum, has been triggered”.

This marks yet another first for CPR members, who are the first group of activists in the Cayman Islands to begin a formal petition to trigger a people-initiated referendum and to successfully collect and have verified the necessary signatures of 25% of the electorate.

However, as government has attempted to undermine the success of the vote by originally setting it six days before Christmas, deliberately creating an uneven playing field for the campaign, with no spending restrictions on its ability to use public money, and the manipulation of the question, Roulstone made the decision as a member of CPR to take legal action.

Her application for a judicial review was supported by a separate action filed by the National Trust, which focused on government’s failure to address a myriad of environmental concerns. The two have now been merged and the Trust has agreed for its grounds for review to be part of the wider action brought by Roulstone.