The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by the Barbuda Council against PLH (Barbuda) Ltd, affirming a lower court’s decision that the developer is not liable for millions in alleged unpaid rent under a 99-year lease agreement.
The case centered on whether a US$5 million contribution made by PLH toward the construction of a new airport on Barbuda should be treated as prepaid rent under two leases signed in 2017.
The Barbuda Council argued that the funds only applied to one lease covering 174 acres at Low Bay, while PLH, represented by Anthony Astaphan, SC and Dr. Errol Cort, successfully maintained that the prepayment also covered rents due under a second lease for 425 acres at Pink Sands.
In 2017, the Government of Antigua and Barbuda, with the consent of the Barbuda Council, entered into two long-term leases with PLH for land at Low Bay and Pink Sands as part of a major luxury tourism project. Alongside the leases, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and an Airport Escrow Agreement (AEA), requiring PLH to deposit US$5 million into a fund to support airport construction.
The Barbuda Council, represented by Ann Henry and Mr. Lenworth Johnsonlater claimed that PLH failed to pay US$900,000 in rent under the 425-acre lease, prompting legal action in 2023. PLH countered that the MOA clearly provided for the US$5 million payment to be credited as advance rent under both leases.
The High Court sided with PLH in 2024, ruling that the contractual documents, when read together, allowed the developer to set off rent obligations against its escrow contribution. The judge rejected the Council’s reliance on witness testimony about the parties’ intentions, stressing that the written agreements were unambiguous.
On appeal, the Barbuda Council argued that the trial judge erred by disregarding its evidence and by failing to properly interpret the lease covenants.
However, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s ruling, finding that:
• The MOA explicitly permitted PLH to credit the US$5 million as prepaid rent for both leases.
• There was no ambiguity in the contractual wording that required resort to outside evidence.
• The Council’s witness testimony was unreliable and unsupported by documentation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Council’s case and ordered it to pay PLH’s legal costs. The ruling is seen as a decisive win for the developer, which has been spearheading one of Barbuda’s largest private investments.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s strict reliance on the language of commercial contracts and is likely to shape how future land agreements on Barbuda are structured and enforced.
CLICK BELOW TO SEE FULL VERDICT:
The Barbuda Council v PLH (Barbuda) Ltd – Judgment_250916_162404
Here we go again! Barbuda’s bushmen – sorry I meant bush lawyers, continue to pretend that they have even a basic knowledge of LAW and so continue to waste taxpayers’ money that could be put to better use. The old farts that currently control the Barbuda Council need to be put out to pasture, banished even, in the public interest.
But what kind of lawyers they have nah. All you couldn’t represent me at all. Then again I agree with all you just take their money and make it look like they have a case.
As if everyday is something with dem Barbudans
Those barbudans again,always something those lawyers will tired make money for nothing.The lawyers smart enough to see that case is going no where
I have been reading about this for a while. People love to make lawyers wealthy while they remain poor.
Barbuda Council, my daddy told me a long time ago tha, “lawyer’s houses are built on fools backs”.
This is another example of how the system works against Barbudans. Big developers always seem to get the upper hand, while the Council’s voice is pushed aside.
Too many times the Council drags these cases through the courts only to lose. Taxpayers and Barbudans end up footing the legal costs. This judgment is a wake-up call.
Finally, a decisive outcome. PLH is investing millions in Barbuda, and it’s good to see the courts protect legitimate business agreements. This will give other investors confidence.
Important reminder that disputes like these can’t just be won on sentiment courts will stick to law and precedent.
Are they still on this