George Aboud and Sons Limited and another (Appellants) v Environmental Management Authority (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0070

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) GEORGE ABOUD AND SONS LIMITED (2) LAS CUEVAS PROPERTIES LIMITED

Respondent(s)

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Issue

(1) Is Designated Activity 8(c) in the Schedule to the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (Designated Activities) Order too ambiguous to be enforced? (2) Does the Environmental Commission have the power to grant declaratory relief under Section 81(3) of the Environmental Management Act, Chapter 35:05? (3) Did the Environmental Commission lack jurisdiction to order an Administrative Civil Assessment pursuant to Section 66(1)(d) of the Environmental Management Act, Chapter 35:05?

Facts

The Respondent is the Environmental Management Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (the “EMA”). The Second Appellant, Las Cuevas Properties Ltd (“LCPL”), owns a plot of land by the coast in Trinidad. The First Appellant, George Aboud and Sons Ltd, is responsible for any preservation or development work on LCPL’s land. In March 2019, the EMA applied to the Environmental Commission (the “Commission”) for a declaration that the Appellants had breached Section 35(2) of the Environmental Management Act, Chapter 35:05 (the “Act”). The EMA’s case was that the Appellants had conducted “Designated Activity 8(c)” on the land – clearing and grading land with a gradient of 1:4 or more – without the requisite Certificate of Environmental Clearance (a “CEC”). The EMA also sought an injunction under Section 68 of the Act to restrain the Appellants from committing further breaches until they had obtained a CEC to carry on the work. The Commission made the declaration but did not grant the injunction. Rather, it ordered the EMA to file an Administrative Civil Assessment of damages, an assessment the Commission accepted. The Appellants were thus ordered to pay $141,666.66 to the EMA. The Appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appellants now appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, challenging the enforceability of Designated Activity 8(c), in addition to disputing the jurisdiction of the Commission to grant both a declaration and an Administrative Civil Assessment of damages.

Date of issue

11 August 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top