3 weeks ago
4
In an unprecedented ruling the Belize High Court has upheld the economic rights of businesses by finding the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association (BSCFA), Pablo Burgos, and Canuto Alpuche liable for a 2021 blockade that disrupted operations at Belize Sugar Industries Limited (BSI) and its subsidiary, Belize Cogeneration Energy Limited (BCEL). The court awarded BSI over $520,000 and BCEL close to $43,500 in damages, plus 6% annual interest from January 1, 2022, while dismissing claims against two other defendants and rejecting certain losses due to lack of evidence or failure to mitigate. The case sets a legal precedent, reinforcing that protest actions causing economic harm to businesses can carry serious financial and legal consequences. Speaking on the ruling was Attorney Hector Guerra who represented BSI in the court matter.
Hector Guerra, Attorney at Law: “The BSCFA had in a meeting declared to BSI that if they could not come to some agreement in terms of what the commercial agreement would look like, they would in fact block the mill and they also asserted that no other association, no other farmers would be allowed to deliver sugarcane to the mill. So that forms the backdrop the factual basis upon which this claim was launched. This is a fair and balanced judgement but the underlying essence of the claim is that the court found that the BSCFA and two other farmers were liable because they intentionally and unlawfully blocked the entrance to BSI’s mill. As a result, BSI was unable to conduct business and because BELCOGEN shares a symbiotic relationship with BSI, meaning it relies on bagasse which is a by-product from the manufacturing of sugar cane, it relies on that bagasse. It was unable to get bagasse because there was no manufacturing of sugar. There are only certain roads which lead to BSI and which farmers can actually use to arrive to BSI and in fact blocking a road in Belize is a criminal offense. So if it’s the main artery that farmers must take to arrive at the mill, then naturally the result of that would be that it would cause BSI’s operations to be affected.”
While BSI and its subsidiary BCEL initially sought a combined total of over 1.6 million dollars in damages, the court awarded just over half a million, significantly reducing the claims. The judge rejected several portions of the requested compensation, including losses linked to sugarcane deterioration and unsold stock, citing insufficient evidence and a failure to mitigate certain losses. For instance, BCEL’s claim for over $564,000 was cut down to just $43,456, with the court finding that the company could have continued operations using reserve fuel. Despite not getting what they initially requested, Guerra explained that this was never about money, it was about sending a strong message.
Hector Guerra, Attorney at Law: “This was never about a monetary sum. It’s not about the figure. It’s about the underlying principle. It’s about upholding economic interests and ensuring that parties engage with respect for each other. This case does not say that you cannot engage in industrial action. What it does say is that if you are going to engage in industrial action in collective bargaining, you must do so lawfully with respect to the other party involved. That is what this case says. It must be understood that both the farmers and the mill share a symbiotic relationship and that was recognized in the judgment. The farmers rely on the mill to produce the product. The mill relies on the farmers to actually bring the sugar cane to the mill. So there is no real a struggle here. Both parties need each other. It’s a symbiotic relationship and what the court is sending a message of is that parties must engage lawfully when engaging each other in commercial negotiations. That’s the bottom line of this case.”
The entire case arose from farmers demanding the renegotiation of their commercial agreement with BSI/ASR and claims of unpaid Fairtrade premiums.
English (US) ·