Agreement keeps SMART service in South online

In November, Belize’s leading telecom providers Speednet Communications, parent company of SMART, and Belize Telemedia Limited went to court after BTL attempted to terminate its service to SMART in the South of Belize, following an agreement in July.

BTL claims that SMART was to use the service for its private needs; instead, it illegally offered it to its customers.

SMART meanwhile says that to cut the service would leave over 7,000 customers in the lurch, and that BTL was not keeping to the terms of the July agreement.

On Monday the two parties came to an agreement, preventing an interim injunction, which was signed off on by Supreme Court Madam Justice Shona Griffith. The agreement states that the services will be continued, but not indefinitely.

We spoke with BTL’s attorney Senior Counsel Rodwell Williams.


vlcsnap-2014-12-09-07h50m12s136Smart-BTL-150x150Rodwell Williams – Attorney for BTL

Essentially what occurred is as you may recall, SpeedNet had an application against PUC and BTL in relation to this claim they brought. We were to have an injunction hearing application. As between SpeedNet and the PUC, SpeedNet will withdraw that claim against the PUC.

I have no comment on what is their options or what they may or may not do. I’m saying that they will be allowed the service until the twenty-eight [of February] ,and as a result they have consented to the dismissal of the claim. There is no claim continuing and they will withdraw against the PUC.”


Speednet’s attorney Andrew Marshalleck would only tell us that they continue to hammer out the precise arrangement of the court order.

Rodwell Williams for his part would not comment on whether SMART could bring BTL to court again on this matter.

PUC attorney Fred Lumor is to apply for costs after his clients were tacked on the case this past Friday, only to learn on Monday that the two parties had agreed and the claim against them would be dismissed.

In court Mr Lumor argued that $10,000 in costs should be assessed for their work, but Mr Marshalleck countered that they are not entitled to that much because the case was settled at a very preliminary stage, even before full case management.

About the Author