A long-running legal dispute between popular soca recording artist Patrice Roberts and her former management company, Soca Bookings Incorporated, has reached a partial settlement in Trinidad’s High Court, with the artist ordered to pay just over $30,000 in compensation while securing a $9,000 payout in her own counterclaim for unpaid royalties.
The conflict traces back to an oral management agreement struck between the Canadian-based company and Roberts back in February 2015. Under the terms of that informal arrangement, Soca Bookings agreed to provide a full suite of artist management support, including securing performance bookings, building Roberts’ public brand, organizing recording projects and expanding her reach through international promotional campaigns.
When the relationship between the two parties broke down, Soca Bookings launched a legal suit seeking compensation for unpaid management fees for services delivered between 2015 and 2017. While both sides never disputed that a basic contractual arrangement existed, the core point of contention centered on one critical, unwritten term: when were management fees due to be paid? The company insisted fees were payable immediately for all work completed, while Roberts argued fees were only due once the business partnership turned a profit.
In his ruling delivered Tuesday, Justice Robin Mohammed sided with Roberts on that core question, finding the company failed to produce evidence that the profitability threshold for triggering fee payments had ever been met. “The management fees were only payable once the venture became profitable and the Claimant has not established…that that threshold was ever reached,” the judge wrote in his judgment.
Even with that finding, the judge ruled that the principle of quantum meruit— a legal doctrine that requires compensation for work performed where a recipient has benefited from that work— meant Roberts could not walk away without compensating the firm for its services. “She retained all financial benefits… and in those circumstances cannot in equity be permitted to benefit from the Claimant’s work without compensating it,” Justice Mohammed added.
The court ultimately awarded Soca Bookings $22,535 for rendered management services, plus an additional $8,200 to cover verified loans and advances the firm had extended to Roberts during their partnership. That brought the total award to the company to $30,735. A separate claim for $11,600 tied to expenses for a music video shoot was thrown out, after the court ruled the firm had not produced sufficient evidence to prove it had covered those costs.
On the other side of the dispute, Roberts won her counterclaim alleging that Soca Bookings had collected digital streaming and sales royalties on her behalf but never passed those earnings to her. Trial evidence contradicted the company’s earlier denials that it had received the funds, and with no complete formal financial records available to calculate the exact amount owed, the court approved $9,000 as the most reasonable estimate of the unpaid proceeds, awarding that sum to Roberts.
Both parties were also awarded pre-judgment interest and legal costs. Justice Mohammed ruled that the opposing awards could be set off against one another, resulting in a net payment from Roberts to her former management of $25,104.12, plus TT$26,983.71 in cost awards.
Soca Bookings was represented in court by attorneys Tara Thompson, Gideon McMaster and Joel Roper, while Roberts was represented by Sterling John and Shelly Clarke.
In closing the case, Justice Mohammed used the ruling to highlight a widespread risk in the entertainment industry: the dangers of relying on unwritten, informal business agreements. The judge noted that the entire costly and time-consuming dispute could almost certainly have been avoided if the two sides had formalized their agreement with a clear, signed written contract before starting their working relationship.
