Supreme Court Justice Oswell Legall today issued judgment in favor of Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL), when he dismissed a claim filed by rival telecommunications company, SpeedNet, in December 2009.
In that application, SpeedNet had asked the court for a declaration that BTL had violated the Belize Telecommunications Act when it flexed its muscle in the market to interrupt telecommunications services to SpeedNet and its customers, due to a dispute over a series of agreements with BTL, which SpeedNet has maintained are valid.
Amandala readers will recall that BTL had temporarily disconnected SpeedNet’s services in late 2009, amid a dispute over agreements that BTL had awarded to SpeedNet when it was under the management control of the Ashcroft group of companies. Government now deems SpeedNet to be a part of the Ashcroft group of companies, and BTL has argued that the agreements had put SpeedNet at a favorable advantage at BTL’s expense.
In its challenge of BTL, SpeedNet also asked the court for an injunction to restrain BTL from refusing to provide telecommunication services to SpeedNet, as well as to require BTL to provide SpeedNet with reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for all telecommunication services.
In his decision announced today, Justice Legall ordered that, “[SpeedNet], represented by Ernesto Torres and one other person, and [BTL], represented by Karen Bevans and one other person, shall enter into new negotiations, commencing from April 7, 2011, to not later than 7th May 2011, for the purpose of making new interconnection and infrastructure agreements, including rates and charges.”
Where agreements are made, said Legall, those should be submitted to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for approval not later than 14th May 2011.
However, if the parties fail to agree on new terms for infrastructure and interconnection agreements, Legall said, the parties “shall, within 10 days from the date of such failure, so inform the [PUC] who, for the purpose of providing a resolution, shall, by order not later than 7th July, 2011, establish the terms and conditions for standard interconnection and infrastructure agreements between the claimant and the 1st defendant [BTL], including rates and charges, or prescribe the specific methodologies for the determination of rates and charges. Such an order shall be binding on the claimant and 1st defendant.”
Legall then announced that he is dismissing the claim filed by SpeedNet and the injunctions previously granted against BTL would be discharged.
SpeedNet was ordered to pay the court costs of BTL, but not the PUC, the regulator of the industry, listed as 2nd defendant in the case.
Andrew Marshalleck, SC; Eamon Courtenay, SC; Naima Barrow-Badillo, and Ashanti Arthurs-Martin represented SpeedNet in the case. Lois Young, SC, and Nigel Ebanks represented BTL. Fred Lumor, SC, and Andrea McSweaney-McKoy represented the PUC.