Leeward Water Services Ltd (Appellant) v Provo Water Company Ltd and another (Respondents)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0001

Jurisdiction

Turks and Caicos Islands

Parties

Appellant(s)

Leeward Water Services Ltd

Respondent(s)

Provo Water Company Ltd

Attorney General of Turks and Caicos Islands

Issue

Does the Water and Sewerage Ordinance (No.32 of 1994) (the “Ordinance”), on its true construction, permit the appointment of more than one water undertaker for any specific area?

Facts

The Appellant, Leeward Water Services Ltd (“Leeward”), is a Turks and Caicos company. On 21 April 2019, the Appellant was served with an instrument of appointment made by the Minister (as defined in the Ordinance) appointing it as the water and sewerage undertaker for an area in Leeward, Providenciales (the “Leeward Area”) for a period of ten years, subject to renewal on expiration. As context, Leeward was first appointed as the water and sewerage undertaker for the Leeward Area on 6 February 2007 for an initial one-year term. Leeward was subsequently appointed for a five-year term from November 2008, subject to renewal on expiration. The First Respondent, Provo Water Company Ltd (“Provo”), is a Turks and Caicos company. Provo was appointed as water and sewerage undertaker by the Minister for the majority of the island of Providenciales and certain smaller islands for an initial period of 20 years from 1 January 1997. The appointment was subsequently extended, resulting in Provo’s term being one of 65 years from 1 January 1997. The areas in respect of which Leeward and Provo have been appointed as water and sewerage undertakers overlap in relation to the Leeward Area. In January 2022, Leeward issued a writ of summons seeking, amongst other things, a declaration that pursuant to the Ordinance there can only be one water undertaker for a particular geographical area and that Leeward is the sole water undertaker for the Leeward Area. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance did not prohibit the appointment of more than one water undertaker for any specific geographic area and the Court of Appeal dismissed Leeward’s appeal. Leeward now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.