CABLE & Wireless Communications yesterday scored a major victory against arch-rival Digicel when the United Kingdom High Court dismissed claims brought by Digicel that its entry into the Caribbean telecoms market was unlawfully blocked by Cable & Wireless between 2002 and 2006.

“Mr Justice Morgan handed down a judgement in the High Court dismissing all the claims brought by Digicel, except for in the Turks & Caicos, where he found a minor breach of contract but ruled it caused Digicel no delay and thus no loss,” Cable & Wireless Jamaica (which trades under the name LIME) said in a news release.

“Cable & Wireless Communications will now take action against Digicel to seek the reimbursement of its costs of defending the matter,” the company said, indicating that the dispute between both firms was not at an end.

“This case has been a pointless waste of time and money,” the release quoted Tony Rice, Cable & Wireless Communications CEO. “It was brought by Digicel on the eve of our AGM in July 2007 amid a fanfare of publicity and a statement that its claim was for several hundreds of millions of pounds. We maintained throughout that the case was baseless, and the UK High Court has now vindicated this. I am delighted that we have won and are now free from this unnecessary distraction.”

According to the Cable & Wireless release, the case involved claims that it had breached the telecoms statutes in six Caribbean territories — Barbados, Cayman, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada and the Turks & Caicos Islands — which Digicel was entering as a competitor to Cable & Wireless between 2002 and 2006.

“Similar allegations were also made against TSTT, the Trinidad & Tobago-based telecom operator, in which Cable & Wireless Communications holds a minority stake,” the release said, adding that Digicel also alleged senior management of Cable & Wireless plc, the then parent company of Cable & Wireless Communications Group, had been involved in a ‘conspiracy’ to delay its entry into these markets.

“The judgement dismissed all of the claims in the seven territories and the overarching conspiracy claim with the minor exception that the judge found a breach of a short letter agreement with Digicel in the Turks & Caicos Islands, but which he ruled caused Digicel no delay and thus no loss,” Cable & Wireless said.

Digicel, in its response, said it was “extremely disappointed” with the judgement and attributed the decision to weak regulatory frameworks in the seven Caribbean jurisdictions.

“Indeed, the Judge himself described the legislation as being “poorly drafted”,” Digicel said, while highlighting Justice Morgan’s description of senior executives of TSTT and its contractors, Nortel, as;

* acting “contrary to honest practices” and thereby breaking the law in Trinidad with two defined breaches of the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act 1996; and

* deliberately giving false or misleading evidence at the trial.

Digicel said it would be asking the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad & Tobago (TATT) to “conduct a full inquiry into this matter to determine whether punitive action should be taken against TSTT in Trinidad — particularly taking into account the Judge’s finding that TSTT and Nortel conspired to produce false and misleading documents that were provided to TATT”.

However TSTT, in its response, said it was under a statutory duty to facilitate the interconnection process with any new network provider and to act in a non-discriminatory manner.

The Trinidad firm said that Digicel, which initially sought at least US$50 million in damages alone from TSTT, had amended its claim in several material respects on a number of occasions during the course of the trial.

“By the end of the trial, many of Digicel’s points against TSTT had been abandoned, so much so that their modified claims had little or no correlation to their originally pleaded case,” TSTT said.

“Following the changes in Digicel’s case, the claim against TSTT was based solely upon breaches of the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act 1966 (PAUC),” TSTT said in a news release. “Digicel cited a series of allegations of specific conduct, which they claimed amounted to a breach of the PAUC. TSTT strenuously denied that it had delayed the interconnection process.”

Added TSTT: “The claim far exceeded the operating profit of TSTT in any given year. We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the decision as, once again, TSTT has been vindicated in relation to the interconnection process which took place in Trinidad and Tobago.”

The company also said that “with TATT already presiding over three arbitrations dealing with interconnection, all of which TSTT has won, coupled with the victorious outcome for TSTT in the London Courts, TSTT is confident that there is no basis whatsoever for any investigation by TATT and, justifiably, considers the matter closed”.