Broadcasting Authority’s $10M lawsuit against errant broadcasters for High Court
-after magistrate’s says lower court does not have jurisdiction
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) Leslie Sobers says that the regulatory body is preparing to initiate action in the High Court to recover over $10 million in fees from broadcasters.
Sobers told Stabroek News yesterday that the decision was taken to withdraw similar proceedings previously filed in the magistrates’ courts after the magistrate hearing the matter, guided by statute, suggested that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter given the size of the debt sought for recovery.
Section 3 (1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Petty Debt) Act, which sets out the extent and limitation of the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court to hear matters for the demand or recovery of debt, provides that “all actions… for the recovery of any debt or demand where the amount claimed is not more than fifty thousand dollars…” may be commenced in the magistrates’ courts, and shall be heard and determined in a summary way.
Earlier this year, the GNBA commenced legal action against three errant broadcasters for outstanding fees. One broadcaster settled its accounts with the authority after the action was commenced against it, resulting in the withdrawal of the matter.
The GNBA continued proceedings against the other two broadcasters Atlantic Cable Network Inc and Bartica
Communications Network Inc - for outstanding fees in excess of $10 million. The broadcasters, Sobers has said, had been operating for several years without a licence, and the amounts being sought represent fees that the operators would have had to pay during that time to carry on their operations.
Sobers said that provisions in the Broadcasting Act 2011 lead both the GNBA and the attorney retained to handle these recoveries, Nigel Hughes, to believe that the amounts could be recovered in the magistrates’ courts.
Section 42 of the Broadcasting Act states that any sums owing to the GNBA under that Act may be recovered by the authority in a magistrates’ courts.
Sobers said that notwithstanding the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Petty Debt) Act, the use of the term “may” in the Broadcasting Act suggests that though there seems to be a clash of provisions, the magistrates’ courts, regarding debt collection under the Broadcasting Act, has a discretion to hear matters for the collection of debt exceeding the stipulated $50,000.
As such, Sobers is of the opinion that the magistrates’ courts could have proceeded with the matter.
Nevertheless, to avoid any risks to the success of the cases, Sobers said that a decision has been taken to withdraw the matters from the magistrates’ courts and file fresh proceedings by Fixed Date Application in the High Court.