PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad – A long-running legal disagreement between internationally recognized Soca performer Patrice Roberts and her former Canadian management firm has concluded with a binding ruling from the Trinidad and Tobago High Court, ordering the entertainer to compensate the company for professional services rendered during her two-year representation.
The case centered on an informal oral management contract struck between Roberts, 40, and Ontario-based agency Soca Bookings Incorporated in February 2015. Under the terms of the unwritten deal, the company committed to delivering end-to-end career management support, spanning international performance bookings, brand development, studio recording coordination, and global promotional outreach to expand Roberts’ audience outside the Caribbean.
While both parties never disputed that a working agreement existed, key contractual details remained ambiguous, most critically the timeline for management fee payments. Soca Bookings argued fees were due immediately upon provision of services, while Roberts maintained all compensation would be deferred until the business partnership turned a profit.
Delivering the final judgment, Justice Robin Mohammed sided with Roberts’ account of the payment terms, finding the management firm failed to provide evidence that the profitability threshold had ever been met. Even so, the judge ruled that equity demanded Roberts compensate the company for the tangible work and financial support it provided to advance her career. He awarded Soca Bookings US$35,472, a sum that covers both reasonable compensation for the firm’s services and cash advances the company issued on Roberts’ behalf between 2015 and 2017, plus accrued interest.
The ruling also offset this award with a separate sum owed to Roberts: the court ruled the entertainer was entitled to US$10,367.88 plus interest, representing digital music sales revenue the firm collected on her behalf during the management period that it had not turned over. A separate US$11,600 claim tied to expenses for a music video production was thrown out entirely, after justices found the company provided no credible proof it had actually incurred that cost.
After accounting for mutual awards of pre-judgment interest and legal costs that the judge ordered can be set off against one another, the final net sum Roberts must pay amounts to roughly US$25,104.12 plus TT$26,983.71 in cost assessments.
In closing remarks accompanying the ruling, Justice Mohammed issued a stark warning to entertainers and industry professionals about the pitfalls of informal, unwritten contracts in the entertainment space. He noted that the entire costly and time-consuming legal dispute could have been completely avoided if the two sides had formalized their arrangement in a written, signed contract that clearly outlined all core terms and expectations.