Piarco International Airport - File photo
The Piarco Airport Taxi Co-operative Society Ltd has filed a breach of contract claim against the Airports Authority over their right to operate at the Piarco International Airport.
The lawsuit filed on October 24, follows a move by the authority to have the society’s members enter into a lease for use of carpark facilities.
The society’s 81 members contend this move is in breach of contract and breach of the promises, assurances, representations, and agreements made to them.
The society is represented by attorneys Yaseen Ahmed and Tara Lutchman. The society was established in 1991 and was an amalgamation of the three groups operating the international taxi line at the airport.
The lawsuit said around 1990, discussions were held with the heads of the three groups with the authority’s predecessor, the Civil Aviation Authority for the formation of the society as the taxi drivers were considered an essential service to the airport and the new body would govern its affairs. It was agreed the society would get an office space and that a concession fee would be paid monthly for the use of the facilities instead of a line fee by individual members.
>
The claim also said there was an agreement for the authority to provide the society with a carpark facility and a controlled area for drivers in designated areas.
In 1995, the international and domestic taxi lines merged and the latter became part of the society bringing to 81, the total number of operators. With the expansion of the Piarco International Airport in 2000, the society was part of the overall transition from the old airport to the new and continued to have exclusivity in its operations. It received free car park usage for about 100 taxis, an office in the arrival/customs wing at a monthly rental and continued to pay the $5,750 monthly concession fee. It also received a taxi booth in 2015 and, as an exclusive taxi provider, a competing rental company was forced to remove its sign advertising a taxi service and several were prevented from soliciting passengers.
“The claimant contends that for their operations in the new airport at no time from the year 2001 was any time limit placed on the business of the society and neither up to the year 2022 was any lease presented to the society for confinement of the time and restrictions in the relationship as between the authority and the society.”
The claim accused the authority of acting in bad faith by denying members their promised right to operate at the airport and the use of the carpark facilities while also failing to stop taxis from soliciting international and domestic passengers.
The society has also taken issue with a response from the authority that the rights it had were not exclusive and did not agree with its proposal for a lease at $8,050 per month for 25 years. The authority has offered a lease term of seven years and gave the society until October 18 to respond.
The lawsuit sets out numerous alleged breaches of “contractual and equitable obligations started in 1989/1991,” reneging on promises and agreements, the “gradual removal of their exclusivity of services and the unacceptable manner of treatment the members is receiving daily.”
“The vast majority of members have all acted to their detriment by leaving good paying jobs to take up work and membership in the society, positions known to be of unlimited duration, by the purchase of expensive and special taxi vehicles to be used in furtherance of their new jobs.”
A pre-action letter sent on October 14, gave the authority ten days to offer a “more realistic long-term solution” but the lawsuit said there was no response. A second letter was sent on October 21 but there was still no response from the authority.
The society is seeking several declarations that it received an irrevocable licence and promissory estoppel existed so the authority could not deny it the unlimited and/or exclusive right to operate at the Piarco airport.
>
Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that states that if someone reasonably relies on a promise and acts (or fails to act) in a way that causes them financial harm because of that promise, the promise can be enforced.
In the alternative, they are asking for a 25-year lease for the use of a special taxi line with four spots, free carpark usage, an office, a taxi booth and exclusive right to ply their trade at the current rate.
Another suggestion is that they continue for an unlimited time, or until the court sees fit, to pay a concession fee and enjoy the right to operate at the airport, receive general use of airport facilities and benefit from a special taxi line, free carpark usage and an office at the airport at a fixed monthly rental rate. It also wants 15 spots in the carpark at the back of the food court at no cost and an injunction to prevent the authority from interfering or terminating its “exclusive provision of taxi services” for international and domestic line passengers.
