A High Court judge has refused the government’s bid to strike out a lawsuit brought by Sheryl Inigo Joseph, the mother of a man who died in prison custody in 2018, clearing the way for her negligence and misfeasance case against public authorities to proceed.

Cordayro Joseph was found dead in his cell at His Majesty’s Prisons on 24 September 2018, in what officials initially described as a suicide.

His mother filed a civil claim against the Attorney General seeking damages for alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office. She alleges that both the Coroner and Police failed in their respective duties to investigate and provide timely answers, resulting in years of emotional trauma and a lack of closure.

In response, the government applied to have the case struck out, arguing it was filed too late under the Public Authorities Protection Act (PAPA), which imposes a six-month time limit on claims. The state also contended that the matter had already been litigated in earlier public law proceedings filed by Joseph in 2022 and was therefore an abuse of process.

However, in a ruling issued on 9 May, High Court Master Carlos Cameron Michel rejected both arguments.

On the limitation issue, the Court held that whether the Coroner and Police were acting under a public duty protected by PAPA—or owed a private duty of care to Joseph—was a “fact-sensitive issue” that should be resolved at trial, not at the preliminary stage.

“Striking out a claim is a draconian step,” Master Michel wrote, noting that a cautious approach is necessary, especially when a full defence has not yet been filed.

Regarding the government’s claim that Joseph’s new suit was an abuse of process due to her earlier public law action—where the Court ordered a coroner’s inquest and she later withdrew a claim for damages—the judge drew a distinction between the nature of the two cases.

“The causes of action in the two sets of proceedings are therefore different,” he said, adding that the private law claims for damages now being pursued were not adjudicated in the prior case.

The judge concluded that while both sets of proceedings arose from the same underlying events, Joseph was not relitigating previously decided issues nor seeking to harass the state with duplicative claims.

“The Court should not stifle genuine claims unless circumstances warrant a finding of an abuse of the Court’s process,” he stated.

The Attorney General has been ordered to pay $1,000 in costs and file a defence by 10 June. A case management hearing is scheduled for 22 July.

The ruling opens the door for Joseph to seek damages in relation to what she describes as years of institutional silence surrounding her son’s death.