Source: Guyana Chronicle

The Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Company (GT&T) has lost its request to stay the enforcement of a High Court Order which had directed the company to pay entrepreneur James Samuels $1,000,000 in damages, and declaring GT&T to be an unlawful monopoly. According to a press release received yesterday from International Attorney Dave Kissoon of Cozen O’Connor, GT&T has lost its request to stay the enforcement of the order of Justice Rishi Persaud, pending appeal.

Justice B.S. Roy, rendering a decision yesterday, February 22, refused to stay Justice Persaud’s June 19, 2012 Order, which directed GT&T to pay entrepreneur James Samuels $1,000,000 in damages and declaring GT&T to be an unlawful monopoly.

Mr. Samuels, who was previously represented by Charles Ramson, S.C., is currently represented by Attorneys-at-law, Mr. Parmanand Mohanlall and International Attorney, Dave Kissoon of Cozen O’Connor with Mr. Miles Fitzpatrick, S.C., with Mr. Timothy Jonas, is representing GT&T.

The release stated further that Samuels had applied for and was provided with DSL internet service by GT&T in 2006, which holds an exclusive licence for national and international voice and data transmission under the Telecommunications Act, 1990. After the internet service was installed on the plaintiff’s computer located at his residence in Georgetown, he subscribed to a Voice Over Internet Protocol Service (VOIP) provided by the Vonage Company of the USA. Vonage, according to the release, enables a subscriber to send and receive voice communication electronically over the internet by use of a personal computer.

The release said that Samuels had written GT&T to inform them of his intention to utilise the VOIP service in Guyana, to which GT&T replied advising him that under the terms of his contract with the defendant, he was prohibited from utilising the DSL service for international telephone activities or for international telephone bypass, and blocked Samuels’s internet access, thereby disrupting the DSL service which was provided to him.
GT&T contended that the disruption of the service was justified, since the plaintiff was unlawfully operating an unlicensed telecommunication service in contravention of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act , Act 27 of 1990, and of the defendant’s contract and licence with the Government of Guyana.

As a consequence, Samuels instituted these proceedings seeking, inter alia, a declaration that there is a breach of the contract executed between himself and GT&T for the provision of the DSL service for his premises at 292 Church Street, Queenstown, with respect to his use of VOIP equipment.

After a trial on the issues, Justice Persaud not only awarded Samuels damages, but stated that, “I accordingly uphold the plaintiff’s submission on this issue and find that the licence granting an exclusive right or monopoly to the defendant [GT&T] to provide telecommunications service or to control or regulate voice and data transmission on the internet is unlawful and void,” the release concluded.

When asked for comment, Samuels stated, “It is unfortunate that GT&T continues to expend time and resources on a position that I and the courts believe to be clearly without merit. Guyana’s telecommunications sector must be immediately liberalised and I will continue to fight for the good of my fellow citizens.”

According to the release, GT&T has indicated that they intend to approach the Full Court to revisit the issue of a stay.

Source: Guyana Times

The Guyana Telephone and Telegraph (GT&T) company has lost its request to stay the enforcement of the order of Justice Rishi Persaud pending appeal, which had declared the monopoly held by the company as unlawful and awarded $1 million in damages to a man who had sued the telephone giant. GT&T has since appealed the decision and was granted an interim injunction which must be filed in 14 days.

Justice BS Roy on Friday refused to stay Justice Persaud’s June 19, 2012 order, which directed GT&T to pay entrepreneur James Samuels $1,000,000 in damages and declaring GT&T to be an unlawful monopoly. Samuels, who was previously represented by Charles Ramson, SC, is currently represented by attorneys Parmanand Mohanlall and Dave Kissoon of Cozen O’Connor, with Miles Fitzpatrick, SC and Timothy Jonas representing GT&T.

Samuels had applied for and was provided with DSL Internet service by GT&T in 2006, which holds an exclusive licence for national and international voice and data transmission under the Telecommunication Act 1990. After the Internet service was installed on the plaintiff’s computer located at his residence in Georgetown, he subscribed to a Voice Over Internet Protocol Service (VOIP) provided by the Vonage Company of the United States of America. Vonage enables a subscriber to send and receive voice communication electronically over the Internet by use of a personal computer.

Samuels had written GT&T to inform them of his intention to utilise the VOIP service in Guyana, to which GT&T replied advising him that under the terms of his contract with the defendant, he was prohibited from utilising the DSL service for international telephone activities or for international telephone bypass, and blocked Samuel’s Internet access, thereby disrupting the DSL service which was provided to him. GT&T had contended that the disruption of the service was justified since the plaintiff was unlawfully operating an unlicensed telecommunication service in contravention of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act, Act 27 of 1990 and of the defendant’s contract and licence with the government of Guyana.

As a consequence, Samuels instituted proceedings in the High Court seeking, inter alia, a declaration that there is a breach of the contract executed between himself and GT&T for the provision of the DSL service for his premises at 292 Church Street, Queenstown, with respect to his use of VOIP equipment. After a trial on the issues, Justice Persaud not only awarded Samuels damages, but stated that “I accordingly uphold the plaintiff’s submission on this issue and find that the licence granting an exclusive right or monopoly to the defendant [GT&T] to provide telecommunications service or to control or regulate voice and data transmission on the Internet is unlawful and void.”

GT&T had responded to the July 20 ruling by Justice Persaud saying that the Commercial Court ruling by Justice Persaud is in clear violation of its lawful rights under the Telecommunications Act of 1990 and other Guyana laws. “We are further concerned that attempts to develop telecommunications policy through piecemeal court decisions are harmful to both consumers and the country. GT&T has long made it clear that we support an open and competitive telecommunications landscape. We stand ready to negotiate a thoughtful, comprehensive policy that both protects consumers and promotes further investment by GT&T in Guyana’s telecoms sector,” GT&T had said.

Source: Barbados Today Online

Former chief executive officer of the West Indies Cricket Board, Ernest Hilaire, came under fire during cross- examination by the West Indies Players Association’s lead counsel, Dave Kissoon as the case between the WICB and WIPA continued yesterday at the Port of Spain High Court. Hilaire, who served as the WICB CEO from 2009-2012, was called to the witness stand to give evidence in the dispute between WIPA and the WICB over the use of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Board and the players.

Kissoon showed that Hilaire had stated in an interview with veteran broadcaster Simon Crosskill that he had received letters from several players instructing him not to deduct money from their salaries and forward it to WIPA. Yet, when the question was posed to Hilaire if any player had ever written the board stating that he had revoked membership with WIPA, Hilaire responded, “No, not during my tenure.”

He also admitted under oath that he had not witnessed a weakening in the relationship between WIPA and its members, something he had alluded to in his witness statement. Hilaire also admitted that he assisted former WIPA CEO Dinanath Ramnarine with the formation of the West Indies Player Management Company Limited, the management company that owns the rights of the players, and that Ramnarine was not the chairman as originally stated.

Kissoon also went into the issues of performance appraisal and sponsorship fees for players, saying that the Ramnaresh Sarwan dispute, which was settled in May of this year, was the breach of a clear and unambiguous clause in the MOU, and that the WICB had a year and a half to settle the issue but failed to do so.

When asked if the players would no longer have contractual right to fair appraisal and the Provident Fund if the agreements were terminated, Hilaire said that he believed these would be covered in the retainer contracts. However, Kissoon showed that the appraisals were addressed in Schedule F while payments to the Provident Fund were highlighted in Article 15 of the MOU.

Hilaire also said that sponsorship fees to players were implemented to compensate for the lack of a retainer contract. This was after Kissoon produced documents showing that the fees were being paid since 2004, despite the WICB claiming its payment began only as recent as 2009. A current sum of US$35,000 per day for each day’s play – equally divided among the players for their image rights-is paid, but Hilaire contended that it was supposed to cease when the retainer contracts were introduced in 2006. He said, in order to avoid further conflict the board continued with the payments.

Source: Trinidad Express

Ernest Hilaire, former West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) chief executive officer, came under fire during his cross-examination by the West Indies Players Association’s (WIPA) lead counsel, Dave Kissoon as the courtroom battle between the WICB and WIPA continued yesterday at the Port of Spain High Court, with Justice Ricky Rahim presiding.
Hilaire, who served as the WICB CEO from 2009-2012, was called to the witness stand to give evidence in the dispute between WIPA and the WICB over the use of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding (CBA/MOU) between the Board and the players.

Kissoon showed that Hilaire had stated in an interview with veteran broadcaster Simon Crosskill that he had received letters from several players instructing him not to deduct money from their salaries and forward it to WIPA.

Yet, when the question was posed to Hilaire if any player had ever written the Board stating that he had revoked membership with WIPA, Hilaire responded, “No, not during my tenure.”

He also admitted under oath that he had not witnessed a weakening in the relationship between WIPA and its members, something he had alluded to in his witness statement.
Hilaire also admitted that he assisted former WIPA CEO Dinanath Ramnarine with the formation of the West Indies Player Management Company Limited (WIPMACOL), the management company that owns the rights of the players, and that Ramnarine was not the chairman as originally stated.

Kissoon also went into the issues of performance appraisal and sponsorship fees for players, saying that the Ramnaresh Sarwan dispute, which was settled in May of this year, was the breach of a clear and unambiguous clause in the MOU, and that the WICB had a year and a half to settle the issue but failed to do so.

When asked if the players would no longer have contractual right to fair appraisal and the Provident Fund if the agreements are terminated, Hilaire said that he believes these will be covered in the retainer contracts.

However, Kissoon showed that the appraisals are addressed in Schedule F while payments to the Provident Fund are highlighted in Article 15 of the MOU.

Hilaire also said that sponsorship fees to players were implemented to compensate for the lack of a retainer contract. This was after Kissoon produced documents showing that the fees were being paid since 2004, despite the WICB claiming its payment began only as recent as 2009.

A current sum of US$35,000 per day for each day’s play—equally divided among the players for their image rights—is paid, but Hilaire contended that it was supposed to cease when the retainer contracts were introduced in 2006. He said, in order to avoid further conflict the Board continued with the payments.

“There’s always acrimony between the WIPA and the Board,” said Hilaire. “Even before my tenure there were strikes but we were able to convince WIPA that the best approach was not to call strikes.”

Earlier, yesterday, Anthony Deyal, former corporate secretary of the WICB, testified that the Board’s chief financial officer (CFO) Barry Thomas was using players’ contributions to offset recurring expenditure instead of applying it to the Provident Fund.

He said that and other issues highlighted in the Lucky Report raised serious concerns, and in order to protect his reputation and integrity he demanded that he be appointed corporate secretary.

“I decided I would not take the position offered of communications manager unless I was appointed corporate secretary of the Board in order to protect myself.”

He added that in 2006 he was part of an attempt to implement a permanent arrangement where players would accept part of the Board’s profit as a solution to the on-again, off-again relationship between both parties.

Deyal also testified that the agreements made good business sense, and would have placed the Board in a stable industrial relationship climate.

When cross-examined by Christopher Hamel-Smith, SC, lead counsel for the WICB, Deyal said that the permanent arrangement they sought to put in place for the players to share in the profits could have only been achieved through both parties engaging in negotiation.
Hamel-Smith closed the case for the WICB, the defendants in the matter, without posing any questions to Hilaire. He did not ask CFO Thomas to take the witness stand.

Written submissions by the defence will be submitted on November 12, with the claimants due to submit two days later. The defence will have until January 3, 2013 to respond to the claimants’ submissions.