It is appealing against a Supreme Court ruling on September 19 this year which turned down its application for leave to go to the Judicial Review Court to get several declarations against the OUR.

Mr. Justice Horace Marsh had ruled that it could not grant the application sought because Mossel had failed to establish that the OUR had made any decision in contravention of any section of the Telecommuni-cations Act, 2000.

UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE

Mossel is appealing on the ground that the judge erred in his determination on the evidence that it had failed to establish that the OUR had made a decision in contravention of the Telecommunications Act when the preponderance of unchallenged evidence clearly indicated that the OUR had determined the necessity of ADC.

It is also contending that the judge erred in concluding that the OUR was still in the consultative stage when all of the evidence clearly indicated that the OUR had decided to implement ADC and had indicated to Mossel that it was proceeding along that course with a likely implementation date of March 2003.

The OUR had also refused repeatedly to alter its decision in relation to the release of confidential information. Mossel is asking the Court of Appeal to find that the judge erred in failing to appreciate that the decision of the OUR not to disclose the confidential information supplied by CWJ was itself a decision which could be the subject of judicial review.

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20031108/business/business1.html