_{Promotional flyer of Tate & Lyle Fairtrade certified sugar originating in Belize}

Tate & Lyle’s bid to block BSCFA’s multimillion-dollar Fairtrade lawsuit fails

BELIZE CITY, Tues. July 8, 2025

The Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association (BSCFA) has come out victorious after facing a bid by Tate & Lyle Sugars Limited (T&L) to strike out the association’s claim which challenges non-payment of Fairtrade (FT) premiums. BSCFA says the moneys are owed to them for FT-certified sugar sold during the 2021 to 2023 sugar crop seasons in the north. According to latest figures cited by Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jose Mai, the premiums for the two sugar crop seasons are said to total around $9 million.

In March 2024, the BSCFA took Belize Sugar Industries (BSI) to court as the entity which sells Fairtrade-eligible sugar to Tate & Lyle. That sugar is derived from the cane that BSI purchases from the four sugar cane farmers associations in Belize. The claimants and the defendants all have their Fairtrade International registration and certification by Flocert GmbH (Fairtrade’s independent global certification body). The certification process is a rigorous one.

In June 2024, the BSCFA added Tate & Lyle Sugars as second defendant in the claim after BSI submitted an amended defense indicating that it had reported to Tate & Lyle the FT-eligible sugar from all associations, but that Tate & Lyle had not paid BSCFA the premium because BSCFA did not have a Letter of Enhanced Agreement (LOEA) with Tate & Lyle. However, BSCFA’s position is that they did not need an LOEA, which is not a contract and only memorializes that Tate & Lyle should pay BSCFA directly and not BSI. A main argument in the BSCFA claim is that BSI and Tate & Lyle conspired for BSCFA not to be paid the Fairtrade premiums, as they were trying to pressure the association toward the renegotiation of the Commercial Agreement between BSCFA and BSI. BSCFA’s legal representative, Senior Counsel Magali Marin-Young, told Amandala, “If you look at the whole timing when T & L refused to sign a Letter of Enhanced Agreement with BSCFA, it had everything to do with BSCFA agitating to renegotiate the terms of the Commercial Agreement … so, when the agreement expired in 2021 is when T & L refused, because at that time, BSCFA was actively agitating and writing to them to renegotiate and bring them to the table.” As per Tate & Lyle Sugars’ website (www.tateandlylesugars.com), the company was acquired by the ASR Group in October 2010. ASR has been the parent company of BSI since 2012.

BSCFA successfully obtained the court’s permission to serve notice on Tate & Lyle outside of the jurisdiction. After acknowledging notice, however, Tate & Lyle moved to have the claim struck out. It argued that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim since any dispute regarding the payment of Fairtrade premiums must be resolved based on English Law via arbitration at the Council of the Refined Sugar Association in London, or, if the Association refuses to act as arbitrator, then it shall be the courts of England who settle the matter. According to Tate & Lyle, this is based on the mechanism agreed by both parties in the Letter of Enhanced Agreement signed on March 24, 2021. In response, the BSCFA pointed out that the LOEA expired after BSCFA received the last FT premium for the crop season ending September 30, 2021, and because the LOEA containing the arbitration clause is not renewed automatically, no LOEA existed for the crop seasons under litigation. Tate & Lyle countered that the LOEA was extended by course of conduct, but that argument did not find favour with the judge.

In seeking to get the claim struck out, Tate & Lyle additionally argued that there is no basis for the claim, as it is not a party to the Commercial Agreement between BSCFA and BSI, and that the Fairtrade regulations themselves do not constitute an agreement with contractual obligations since they merely set out criteria and standards for entities to qualify for FT premiums. Furthermore, it asserted that it never received any FT premiums on behalf of BSCFA nor held FT money in trust for the Association.

On July 4, High Court Justice Javed Mansoor denied Tate & Lyle’s application to strike out the claim, stating, “The interests of justice will be served by allowing the parties to proceed to trial.” Responding to the question of whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case, Justice Mansoor took into consideration that BSCFA, as claimant, operates in this jurisdiction, the sugar was produced here, and damages were allegedly sustained by the BSCFA. He also responded to the argument by Tate & Lyle that in applying to serve them notice outside the jurisdiction, BSCFA ought to have notified the court of the arbitration clause in the LOEA. Justice Mansoor stated that, “There is no evidence that the parties intended the dispute resolution clause to apply to events after the expiry of the LOEA.” He therefore determined that it was not necessary for BSCFA to inform the court about the agreement, and affirmed that there was not “false representation or suppression of material particulars,” as Tate & Lyle argued.

Costs were awarded to BSCFA. The matter will now proceed to case management. BSI is being represented by Senior Counsel Godfrey Smith and Hector Guerra, while Tate & Lyle is being represented by Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay and Iliana Swift. Senior Counsel Marin-Young is joined by attorneys Allister Jenkins and Kristy Lopez.

Observers have noted that BSCFA, which has limited financial resources as compared to the defendants, and is facing even more constraints due to the reduced yield in the recently concluded crop season, may be ill-equipped to sustain a protracted legal battle. We are awaiting confirmation on whether Tate & Lyle intends to appeal.