The Board of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) heard arguments in the matter of the Antigua Power Company Limited vs The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda and others from all Counsel, and has concluded that the Joint Venture Contract, entered into in May 2006 between APUA and APC, was binding and included both stages of the generator proposal, and that the contract was subsisting between APC and APUA.
Accordingly, an Order will be made to the effect that APC is entitled to the benefit of a Joint Venture contract with APUA entered into during the month of May 2006 to supply 50.9 megawatts of electrical generating capacity, and damages for breach of agreement by APUA.
The claims of breach of contract by Government has been dropped along with damages for breach of contract against the Government.
On Tuesday, arguments will be heard as to whether APC is entitled to aggravated and exemplary damages against the Prime Minister in relation to his acts of obstruction directed against APC, and whether there was a repudiation of the JVC by APUA as distinct from a breach which would determine the measure of damages.
The issue of damages is to be remitted to the High Court for determination, but the Board of the JCPC is to determine on Tuesday what areas of damages that the High Court is to determine.
The Board of the JCPC was of the view that APUA’s conduct clearly demonstrated that it had acted on the basis that the JVC had been approved in respect of both stages of the generator proposal.
Depending on Tuesday’s decision, UK Counsel will advise on the next steps to be taken by APUA at the government’s directive.
The Board of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is being asked to determine whether the Government of Antigua and Barbuda lawfully performed the functions of the Board of the Antigua Public Utilities Authority (“APUA”) between April and September 2006; whether the whole of the joint venture between Antigua Power Company Ltd (“APCL”) and APUA and/or the Government relating to the construction of a power station needed the approval of the Cabinet and, if so, whether such consent was given and/or whether APUA and the Government are stopped from denying that consent was given; and whether APCL had a legitimate expectation of deriving a benefit from the joint venture.