In a landmark ruling with significant implications for creditor rights and trust law in commercial transactions, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has determined that over EC$513,000 collected by Caribbean Airport Services Ltd. (CAS) on behalf of two major airlines does not constitute company assets and must be returned to the carriers. Justice Rene Williams delivered the decisive judgment, establishing that the funds were held in a fiduciary capacity despite not being segregated in separate accounts.
The case centered on CAS, a ground-handling company ordered into liquidation in February 2025, which had collected cargo and service payments from customers for Amerijet International Airlines and Caribbean Airlines Limited. The company’s standard practice involved deducting commissions before remitting balances to the airlines. When liquidation proceedings began, the court-appointed liquidator sought judicial clarification regarding whether these collected funds should be distributed among creditors or returned to the airlines.
Justice Williams’ analysis focused on the fundamental question of whether CAS exercised discretionary control over the funds. After examining contractual agreements and operational practices, the court determined that CAS functioned merely as a financial intermediary without ownership rights. The company was obligated to account to the airlines after reconciliation and could only retain predetermined commissions and charges.
The judgment emphasized that the absence of formal trust account segregation did not alter the funds’ legal character, as evidence demonstrated CAS lacked authority to utilize the money for corporate purposes beyond agreed deductions. Consequently, the court declared the funds were held in trust and must be repaid to both airlines once final amounts are mutually agreed upon or judicially determined.
The ruling establishes a 30-day window for parties to reach agreement on exact sums, during which disputed amounts will remain in a separate account pending judicial resolution if necessary. Notably, the court issued no order regarding costs, acknowledging the liquidator’s appropriate conduct in seeking guidance on this complex matter of commercial law.