On 20 November 2025, the Caribbean Court of Justice, sitting as the final court of appeal for Belize, handed down its judgment in Controller of Supplies & Ors v Gas Tomza Ltd & Ors [2025] CCJ 16 (AJ). This judgment considers the proper approach to constitutional challenges to socio-economic legislation; specifically, whether regulatory legislation will engage the right to property and consequentially impose a compensatory liability on the State. It is the first time the CCJ has considered the constitutional review of socio-economic legislation, and is a landmark case on the extent of the State’s right to regulate.
In Controller of Supplies the CCJ considered the constitutionality of legislation implementing a new regulatory regime for the importation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (“LPG”) into Belize. LPG is the primary source of fuel used in Belize in various domestic, commercial and industrial applications. The challenged legislation supported a public-private partnership agreement for the construction and operation of a large LPG marine port storage facility to enable the direct importation of LPG to Belize from the US Gulf Coast, and to allow for bulk storage and quality assurance and other testing in Belize. The legislation initially required LPG be exclusively imported into Belize by National Gas Company (“NGC”), but was later amended to permit importation by other companies provided that the LPG was imported either via the NGC facility or an alternative authorised facility with a storage capacity of 1.5 gallons.
The new regulatory regime was challenged by the former importers of LPG, who, for over 20 years, had imported LPG into Belize by trucks over land across Central America. The former importers argued that they had in effect been shut out of the import business by the initial creation of a monopoly in favour of NGC, which had been practically extended by the amended legislation which imposed onerous conditions on importation. They argued that the new regime breached their constitutional rights to compensation upon the taking or acquisition of their property (goodwill), to work, freely associate and to equal treatment. The former LPG importers succeeded at first and second instance in establishing, some but not all, of their grounds of challenge. The Government parties appealed to the CCJ, and the former LPG importers cross-appealed.
In an extensive 4-1 majority judgment the CCJ found for the Government Appellants setting aside the first and second instance decisions in favour of the former LPG importer Respondents on, inter alia, a breach of their constitutional property rights. Following a review of Caribbean and comparative commonwealth jurisprudence, the CCJ made the following principal findings:
- After considering the role played by: (i) judicial deference (and how this may differ where there is constitutional rather parliamentary supremacy); (ii) the presumption of constitutionality and; (iii) (where applicable) the proportionality analysis adopted by the Privy Council in de Freitas and by the CCJ in Titan International Securities in the constitutional review of legislation with a socio-economic policy, the CCJ affirmed that the legislature should be afforded a generous margin of appreciation to shape socio-economic policy, while noting that the courts remain the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights.
- That every country has a right to exercise control over importation.
- That regulation can constitute an indirect ‘taking’ or ‘acquisition’ engaging the constitutional right to property, with the CCJ adopting an substantial and disproportionate interference test (said to be substantially similar to the “adverse effects to a sufficiently serious degree” test recently adopted by the Privy Council in Corp of Hamilton v AG of Bermuda [2025] UKPC 50(BM)).
- That the right to work can apply to corporate entities on a purposive interpretation of the Belize Constitution.
- That freedom of association only protects an association pursing a collective purpose or objective which had a public element at its core; not relationships solely of a private commercial nature.
- That the underlying principle of equality is not the uniformity of treatment to all in all respects but rather to give persons who are similarly situated the same treatment, and different treatment to persons who are differently situated. Ononaiwu JCCJ further observed that where the right to equality is engaged, the court will consider whether the difference in treatment is rationally connected to a legitimate objective and is proportionate.
On the facts, the majority found that the challenged legislation was in the nature of general regulatory law enacted in the public interest, and that it did not go too far as to effect a de facto or indirect taking. In particular, the CCJ found that the Respondents had failed to prove their case that the legislation acquired or took the goodwill in their business because they were able to continue to engage in their core business of distributing and retailing LPG in Belize given that LPG could be sourced from NGC at a statutory fixed price. This also meant that the right to work had not been breached. Further, that the Respondents did not enjoy the right to freedom of association (being commercial enterprises without a collective purpose or objective) or the right of equality (given that the NGC’s investment and role in the public-private partnership meant it was not similarly situated to the Respondents, and that the Respondents had not shown the legislation prescribed unattainable requirements for importation of LPG perpetuating the NGC monopoly).
A copy of the Court’s judgment can be found here.
Angeline Welsh KC acted for the First and Second Appellants together with Edward Fitzgerald KC and Andrew Marshalleck SC. Eamon Courtenay SC, Ms Samanatha Matute and Ms Iliana Swift acted for the Third Appellant. Douglas Mendes SC, Godfrey Smith SC, Luke Hmel-Smith and Hector Guerra acted for the Respondents.
