Montserrat High Court Judge Dismisses KT Engineering's Contract Claim against Digicel

A High Court judge on Montserrat has dismissed KT Engineering’s contract claim against telecommunications giant, Digicel.

In his judgment, Justice Dale Fitzpatrick ruled that the telecommunications provider did not contract KT Engineering Consultants to help install a subsea fibre optic cable link for the island as was claimed.

According to an article in Montserrat Focus News, KT Engineering Consultants, a local company, claimed they had entered into a binding agreement with the telecommunications giant Digicel to provide engineering and contract work, before it was given to another firm.

However, it stated that Digicel has always denied that any agreement with the claimant was reached.

The Montserrat Focus News article said hearing on the matter began in 2020, and ended in a one-day trial in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court on 22 February.

Justice Dale Fitzpatrick, delivered his judgment on 27 May.

He explained that the Government of Montserrat had retained Digicel to install a subsea fibre optic network link for the island.

The telecoms provider then created a ‘request for proposal’ for invited contractors to bid for the works.

The Judge revealed that material communications between parties were all in writing – namely by email sometimes with attachments – over a period of about one month in early 2020.

The trial evidence focused on the contents of the written communications between William Keith Thomas of KT Engineering Consultants and Digicel.

The judgment outlined that on 10 January, 2020, Thomas issued a bid of US$1,385,000 to Digicel for the works.

Digicel’s programme manager Krystle Francis then emailed him seeking revised pricing. In response, Thomas issued a second bid of US$1,399,900 on 30 January.

Digicel’s head of procurement Annette Griffiths this time responded on 31 January saying that they see KT Engineering with high potential to secure this bid…”

She suggested, however, that their price should be a minimum of 10% lower at a final price of US$1.25 million.

According to the evidence, Thomas agreed to the lower price. However, following a short email exchange, Griffiths wrote to say that another company had been selected for the works.

In response, Thomas wrote back that he was shocked as he had “realistic and reasonable expectations that he would be awarded the contract”.

In his judgment, Justice Fitzpatrick said that the focused issue before the court was whether the parties, through their written communications, had entered into a binding agreement.

In his conclusion, he wrote that there is “no doubt” the language that Griffiths used in her 31 January email, in particular her use of ‘counter offer’, could have been better chosen. Judge Fitzpatrick said the claimant failed to prove the case on the civil standard and as such he dismissed the claim.