Petcom barred from IGL cylinders

By Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

THE PETROLEUM Company of Jamaica (Petcom), one of the leading distributors of liquified petroleum gas, has been barred by a Supreme Court order from supplying gas in cylinders bearing the trade mark of IGL Ltd.

IGL Ltd, of 593 Spanish Town Road, Kingston, had applied for an injunction after it filed a suit in the Supreme Court in February this year against Petcom and four filling plant operators seeking $30 million with interest for economic loss suffered as a result of the alleged illegal activity.

Filling plant operators Nigel Goulab, Desmond Chai and FPA Ltd, of St. James and Patrick Edwards, of Gayle, St. Mary, have also been barred by the Supreme Court order from carrying out the alleged illegal activities.

Justice Horace Marsh heard the summons for the interlocutory injunction in March this year and reserved his ruling until last week Tuesday when he granted the injunction which will remain in force until the action has been tried.

Petcom has filed a defence denying the allegations and states further it has no duty or responsibility to protect IGL's trademarks or goodwill.

Attorney-at-law Sandra Minott-Phillips, of the law firm Myers, Fletcher and Gordon, who is representing Petcom said yesterday "it is highly likely Petcom will appeal the grant of the interlocutory injunction as its effect is arguably to put Petcom in the perilous position of being liable for the actions of the filling plant operators in circumstances where it has no way of controlling those actions."

Mrs. Minott-Phillips said it was significant the allegations of unlawful activity in the action brought by IGL were all directed at defendants other than Petcom.

"The reasons given for judgment reveal the basis for the injunction issuing against Petcom to be a determination by the court at this interlocutory stage that the other defendants in the action are the agents of Petcom," she added.

She said further that Petcom's position had always been that its filling plant operators were independent contractors for whose actions Petcom ought not to be held responsible and that, to the extent that it had any influence at all on those operators, it had always counselled them not to fill the cylinders of Petcom's competitors.

She said as far as Petcom was aware other distributors were in the same position as regards to their own filling plant operators some of whom from time to time improperly interfered with Petcom's cylinders.

The effect of the injunction really is to put Petcom in a disadvantageous position as regards other distributors, whereas those companies could now contend on the basis of the injunction that Petcom was responsible for the acts of its filling plant operators, she explained.

Mrs. Minott-Phillips said also there was nothing to impose any such assumption of responsibility on other distributors for the actions of their own filling plant operators.

Back to Lead Stories