Last year around this time, we told you about the outcome of an appeal at the Court of Appeal which the telecommunication company, Speednet, better known as "Smart", brought against the Public Utilities Commission. The telephone company was complaining that the Government regulator was overcharging them for licensing 238 channels used to conduct their business, such as phone calls text messaging, and data.
Well, the phone company was not satisfied with the outcome, and they took it to the final appeals court, the Caribbean Court of Justice.
That case was heard today at the seat of the CCJ in Port of Spain, Trinidad. That's where Smart's attorneys, Eamon Courtenay, and Andrew Marshalleck sought to show the court that the judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court misjudged the very technical case.
The PUC's attorney, Fred Lumor, tried to convince the judges that once again, after an hour of arguments, they failed to make their case, and that the additional 792 thousand dollars in fees that Smart is being charged for their licenses is justifiable. With video provided by the CCJ, here's an excerpt of the arguments and counter arguments that both sides made:
Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for SPEEDNET
"Has found that the word channel is to construed as a voice channel and not a radio channel. It be a voice channel according to the court of appeals the proper charge is $100 per voice channel which result in a charge of $792,500 Belize, as opposed to $1,400 Belize dollars if it is on a basis of radio frequency channel. Your honors I believe the best place to start is to discuss what the evidence is on the question of channel, because the evidence before this court shows in our respectful submission that the word channel may mean radio frequency channel, or voice channel. The point we are making is that nowhere in the court of appeals judgement is a discussion of this evidence where Mr. Torres is given the explanation as to voice channel and radio channel. The court of appeal. your honors, we say was wrong and your honors, I think we can agree between the parties on the following: 1) that is to say that the word channel is to be used in a technical sense and that regard can be had to books, articles, cases as to how to interpret channel. The position of the appellant is that on the evidence, channel refers to either a voice channel or a radio channel. The argument for the respondent is that channel means voice channel and voice channel only."
Fred Lumor, Attorney for PUC
"In paragraph F, it says the claimant says the word channel is not defined in a regulation and that is to be construed against the defendant would lies on the same to produce exorbitant charges. The claimant says that when properly and consistently construed the word channel means radio frequency channel or radio link. Your honors, nowhere in the affidavit has the appellant provided any material to the court to justify why they say or they're asking the court to interpret channels to mean radio frequency channel."
Both attorneys were given an hour to make their case, and the hearing took a total of almost 2 and a half hours.
Email
Print