Tweet

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS — In a significant ruling for the creative, entertainment and intellectual property sectors, the High Court of Justice in Saint Christopher and Nevis has dismissed a judicial review claim brought by the Eastern Caribbean Collective Organisation for Music Rights (ECCO) Inc. against the Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs.

The case, SKBHCV2025/0126, centered on whether the Minister acted lawfully in issuing the Copyright (Collective Management Organisations) Regulations, 2024, particularly Regulation 4(6), which states that no person or association may issue or grant copyright or related rights licences unless they hold a certificate of authorisation from the competent national authority.

ECCO, a St. Lucia-based non-profit performance rights organisation registered as an external company in St. Kitts and Nevis, has been issuing copyright licences locally since March 2013. However, following the publication of the Regulations in December 2024, the Minister advised ECCO of the new authorisation procedure and required the organisation to cease issuing licences until it had complied with the regulatory framework.

ECCO challenged the regulation, arguing that the Minister had exceeded his legal authority under the Copyright Act, 2024. The organisation claimed that Regulation 4(6) effectively made its long-standing licensing operations unlawful and improperly interfered with copyright-related property rights without clear authority from Parliament.

ECCO further argued that the Government failed to provide a proper transitional period, claiming that the immediate implementation of the Regulations breached its legitimate expectation that existing operators would be given time to adjust.

The Minister strongly opposed the claim, arguing that the Copyright Act itself required collective management organisations to be authorised and that Regulation 4(6) merely gave practical effect to that requirement. The Minister also contended that ECCO had participated in consultations over a lengthy period and had never requested a transitional period during that process.

Justice Tamara Gill ruled that Regulation 4(6) was not ultra vires, meaning it was not outside the Minister’s powers. The court accepted the Minister’s argument that the Copyright Act, when read as a whole, created a framework requiring collective management organisations to be authorised in accordance with the Act.

The court found that the regulation did not amount to an absolute prohibition on ECCO’s operations. Instead, it required organisations such as ECCO to comply with statutory requirements before carrying out collective licensing activities.

Justice Gill held that the phrase “authorised in accordance with this Act” referred to a public regulatory authorisation process, not merely private authorisation from members or rightsholders. The court rejected ECCO’s interpretation, finding that it would undermine the regulatory framework created by Parliament.

On the issue of legitimate expectation, the court also ruled against ECCO. Justice Gill noted that there was no clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation from the Government that a transitional grace period would be granted. The judgment further stated that ECCO had been involved in the regulatory process for more than two years and had not raised the need for a transitional period during consultations.

The court also observed that ECCO was not in a position to immediately obtain authorisation when the Regulations came into force, as it had failed to file annual returns for 2023 and 2024 and later failed to meet the 2025 filing deadline. The judgment noted that ECCO applied for authorisation on June 18, 2025, more than six months after the Regulations became operational.

In a firm conclusion, the court found that ECCO had failed to establish that the Minister acted unlawfully. Justice Gill ruled that Regulation 4(6) was a valid exercise of the Minister’s regulatory authority and was consistent with the purpose of the Copyright Act.

The court dismissed ECCO’s fixed date claim in judicial review in its entirety and ordered ECCO to pay $10,000 in costs to the Minister.

The ruling is expected to have major implications for copyright administration, music licensing and the operation of collective management organisations in St. Kitts and Nevis. It confirms that entities seeking to issue copyright or related rights licences in the Federation must first obtain proper authorisation under the country’s regulatory framework.

For artistes, composers, promoters, broadcasters, event organisers and businesses that use copyrighted music, the judgment reinforces the importance of lawful, transparent and properly regulated copyright licensing in St. Kitts and Nevis.