The OUR is accusing Web Communications of using the Yap Jack device to bypass Cable and Wireless' international operations, and thereby providing unlicensed telecommunication services. The OUR had planned a public hearing on March 8 this year to determine whether Web Communications had committed the breach, but Web Communications obtained an order from the Supreme Court which barred the OUR from conducting the hearing until the Judicial Review Court determined certain issues.

Web Communications, which markets the Yap Jack device, is claiming that it is not involved in any illegal operations.

MEETING'S MINUTES

Justice Smith ordered that the record of the meeting be made available to the court, following legal arguments from attorneys-at-law Maurice Mannings and Georgia Henlin, of the law firm Nunes Scholefield Deleon & Company, which is representing the OUR, and attorneys-at-law Paul Beswick and Terrence Ballantye of the law firm Ballantye Beswick & Company.

Web Communications, on March 7, had applied for leave to the Supreme Court to get an order of prohibition in relation to the OUR's request to have an hearing into allegations that Web Communications had been providing voice services by selling the Yap Jack devices.

BIAS FOR CABLE AND WIRELESS

However, Web Communications contended that the use of the language in the letter the OUR wrote the company earlier this year, showed that the regulatory agency favoured Cable & Wireless and that the OUR had prejudiced the outcome of any hearing.

On March, 7, Web Communications got leave from the Supreme Court to apply for a judicial review of the OUR's allegation. The court order would have also have the effect of preventing the OUR holding the hearing the next day.

But lawyers representing the OUR, in their preliminary objection yesterday, said that Web Communication's application is premature because it should first have objected at the hearing on March 8, this year. According to the lawyers, if Web Communications was not satisfied with the outcome at the hearing, it could then seek the court's leave to review the allegations.

Lawyers representing Web Communications are contending there was indeed a hearing held on March 8. The OUR maintains, however, that Web Communications having received the prohibition order the previous day, would have nullified any decision made at any hearing.

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20020917/lead/lead2.html