Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10 is a landmark judicial decision by the Privy Council that delves into contract law, company law, and constitutional law. The case focuses on the interpretation and implication of terms into a company's articles of association. This decision is considered significant and has been cited in subsequent cases, including approval by the UK Supreme Court in Société Générale, London Branch v Geys [2012] and Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2015].
In 1989, Belize privatised its telecommunications network, transferring the Belize Telecommunications Authority's business and assets to a corporation named Belize Telecommunications Ltd (later renamed Belize Telemedia). The government retained a special share with rights over significant transactions, including the appointment of two directors. The government also held C shares, allowing the appointment of four directors if the special shareholder retained over 37.5% of the total share capital.
In 2003, the government decided to complete the privatisation, and Belize Telecom bought the special share and the remaining C shares from the government, financing the purchase with a loan. After defaulting on the loan, Belize Telecom's shares were pledged, leading to a situation where no one held both the special share and over 37.5% of the C shares. The company's constitution did not address this scenario.
In 2008, after a change in government, a legal action was brought to change the board. The government argued that the two directors appointed by the person holding the special share and over 37.5% of the C shares could be removed. The company contended that these directors were not removable.
In delivering the advice of the Privy Council, Lord Hoffmann outlined principles for interpreting a company's articles. He emphasised that the court's role is to discover the objective meaning of the instrument, considering all relevant contextual facts. Lord Hoffmann rejected the notion of improving or altering the instrument, emphasising that the court's function is to interpret.
He discussed the process of implication, stating that an implied term must spell out what the instrument reasonably means. The implication must be consistent with the instrument's scheme and should not contradict express terms. Lord Hoffmann clarified that implication is not about what the parties might have intended but about the objective meaning conveyed to a reasonable person.
Applying these principles, Lord Hoffmann advised that the Government Appointed Directors, appointed based on the special share, would cease to hold office upon the redemption of the special share. The articles' scheme, reflecting the interests of various shareholders, required this implication to prevent absurd consequences. The same principle applied when the special shareholder no longer had the 37.5% holding.
This case is widely cited for its comprehensive analysis of implied terms. It clarifies that implication is an exercise in the construction of the entire instrument, emphasising the need for consistency with the instrument's scheme. The decision's significance is highlighted by its subsequent approval and citation in other legal contexts, solidifying its position as a key authority on implied terms in contract and company law.
Check out our exam-focused Company Law notes now.
Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.
