Antigua Commercial Bank (Respondent) v Mary E. Prophet (Appellant) (Antigua and Barbuda)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0001

Jurisdiction

Antigua and Barbuda

Parties

Appellant(s)

Mary Prophet

Respondent(s)

Antigua Commercial Bank

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in allowing in part the employer’s appeal against a ruling of the Industrial Court which had awarded compensatory and exemplary damages to an employee whose employment was terminated upon reaching the age for compulsory retirement?

Facts

Ms. Mary Prophet was employed by Antigua National Bank (“the Bank”) as a messenger/maid, initially on four successive fixed-term contracts, the first of which began on 7 November 2000. On 5 February 2004, Ms. Prophet was informed that her fourth contract would not be renewed when it expired. Ms. Prophet then contacted the Antigua and Barbuda Workers Union (“the Union”), of which she was a member. The Union was the sole bargaining agent for the bargaining unit of employees of the Bank and had concluded collective agreements with the Bank for the periods 2002-2005 and 2005-2008 which established general terms and conditions of employment for its members who were employees of the Bank. The Union made representations to the Bank on Ms. Prophet’s behalf concerning the Bank’s expressed intention not to renew her employment contract. As a result, the Bank reversed its position, and by a letter dated 6 September 2004, the Bank offered Ms Prophet permanent employment retroactive to her start date (7 November 2000). Ms. Prophet signed the offer letter on 10 September 2004, signifying her acceptance of its terms. One of the terms set out in the offer letter was that the age of retirement at the Bank is sixty years. In addition, the letter indicated that because Ms. Prophet was already above the age of fifty, her membership in the pension scheme was not automatic and she would therefore have to apply to the board of trustees which administered the scheme to become a member. On 14 September 2004, Ms. Prophet applied to the board of trustees seeking admission to the scheme. However, she received no response to her application, and accordingly, she did not become a member of the pension scheme. On 4 February 2008, the Bank notified Ms. Prophet that she would be retired on her 60th birthday, on 21 July 2008. Being dissatisfied with this, Ms. Prophet began a claim in the Industrial Court in which she asserted that her termination was made in violation of the relevant collective agreement, without notice and contrary to good industrial practices and the laws of Antigua and Barbuda. On 9 May 2018, the Industrial Court held, among other things, that the term “permanent employee” used in the employment agreement meant an employee with a tenure of indefinite duration with no pre-determined time limit, that the contractual retirement age was null, void and unenforceable and that no adequate notice of termination was given. Accordingly, the Industrial Court awarded Ms. Prophet twelve months’ wages (amounting to $23,712.00) as compensation in lieu of notice; fourteen days’ pay in lieu of vacation ($729.60) and pension retroactive to 21 July 2008, at the rate of the amount to which she would have been entitled has she contributed to the scheme. She was also awarded exemplary damages of $20,000.00 for harsh, oppressive and discriminatory treatment by the bank and costs of $5,000.00. The bank appealed, and on 6 November 2018, the Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution of the order of the Industrial Court. By its judgment of 30 October 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the bank’s appeal in part such that: (i) The basic award of $23,712.00 in lieu of notice of compulsory retirement was quashed and substituted with the sum of $5,472.00 to reflect 12 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice of retirement. (ii) The award of the pension at the relevant rate, the award of exemplary damages ($20,000.00) and the costs order ($5,000.00), were quashed. (iii) There was no order as to costs on appeal. Ms. Prophet now seeks permission to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Date of issue

5 January 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top