| The Court of Appeal's 2-week session for June ended today, and as the judges always do, they handed down decisions for appeal cases that they've already deliberated on.
One of the judgments involves a protracted fight between the Public Utilities Commission and telecoms company, Speednet, which is better known as Smart.
As we reported, back in 2011, Smart sued the PUC, claiming that the regulator was overcharging them for the licensing of 238 channels that they use to provide phone calls, texts, and data to customers. The PUC billed them for $800,000, when in previous years, the charge was only $1,400.
The vast difference in the fees was over a dispute over the meaning of the term "channel." It was a highly technical case, but the PUC was billing Smart for the use of voice channels, while Smart insisted that they should have been charged for the radio frequencies, which are cheaper. That case ended up all the way at the Caribbean Court of Justice, which ruled in Speednet's favor in 2016.
That should have been the end of their quarrels. Court documents indicate, however, that another related dispute landed in front of Justice Michelle Arana in 2017. In that suit, brought by Smart, they allege that they demanded a refund of the $792,000 which the CCJ ruled that they overpaid in the previous case. Smart further claimed that the PUC retaliated and "manufactured" outstanding license fees in order to offset the refund amount that the CCJ had ordered to be refunded to Smart.
But, the PUC say that the amount they were supposed to refund to Smart was just under 1 million dollars. They say that Smart had outstanding arrears of 1.44 million dollars. So, by the PUC's calculation, Smart still owed them a balance of $397,000 in fees, and not the other way around.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Arana ruled in Smart's favor, and granted them a permanent injunction against the PUC, preventing them from collecting on that supposed debt of $1.44 million dollars.
The PUC appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, and today, after considering the arguments from both sides, the panel of judges completely overturned the Supreme Court decision. It means, that as of right now, the PUC is allowed to collect on that debt.
It's a significant turn-around victory for the PUC, and shortly after the hearing, we got a chance to speak one of their attorneys:
Sheena Pitts - Attorney for PUC
"This decision is well received because what it does for the Public Utilities Commission, which is a statutory body, it tells the public - it tells public utilities providers that the Public Utilities Commission, by legislation, regulates the actions among them, and that the Public Utilities Commission, the jurisdiction thereof, ought to be revered. The Public Utilities Commission operate to buffer the burden of providers that they would want to pass over to the Public. So, the Public Utilities Commission in this judgement, I believe, should be celebrated for fighting on behalf of the people of Belize, to ensure that public utilities providers are regulated, and that they adhere to the legislation."
"As you would appreciate, this was a technical matter. We would be cautious in saying we'd like to digest the judgement before we speak on it. But basically, what happened is Speednet was using services collecting monies from the public, in exchange for those servicing, and they were not paying. They did not adhere to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission. And the Public Utilities Commission said, okay, from this date, when you ought to have had a license, you were supposed to be paying for the service you are providing. And they were not paying, and the Public Utilities Commission sent a letter saying you are to pay, and Speednet said, no, we don't have to pay. Even though we don't have a license, we don't have to pay. And so, the matter came to court, and what the Court of Appeal, we anticipate, is saying, [is] that where you providing a service, it must be by license, and where those services attract fees, which goes to the Public Utilities Commission, you ought to pay for it."
Smart was represented in this appeal by lead attorney Eamon Courtenay, while the PUC was represented by the lead attorney, Fred Lumor.
So far, there is no comment forthcoming from Smart, but given how the first case ended up, this one could be on the way for a final appeal at the Caribbean Court of Justice.
|
