Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados
PCA · Investment (ICSID and treaty) · Barbados · 13 Jun 2014
Why it matters
This jurisdictional award is notable for its analysis of the 'investment' definition under the Canada-Barbados BIT, particularly the exclusion of property not acquired for economic benefit. It also addresses the limitation period for continuing breaches, deferring complex factual issues to the merits. The case highlights the interplay between environmental protection and investor rights.
Summary
Peter A. Allard, a Canadian investor, claimed that Barbados breached the Canada-Barbados BIT by failing to protect his eco-tourism investment, the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary, from environmental degradation. Barbados raised three jurisdictional objections: (1) the sanctuary was not an 'investment' under the BIT because it was not acquired for economic benefit; (2) Allard did not own or control the investment in accordance with Barbadian law; and (3) the claims were time-barred under the BIT's three-year limitation period. The Tribunal rejected the first objection, finding that the sanctuary was acquired with an expectation of economic benefit, as Allard intended to operate it as a commercial eco-tourism venture. On the second objection, the Tribunal found that Allard owned the investment through a chain of companies, and any exchange control issues did not affect ownership. On the third objection, the Tribunal upheld jurisdiction over claims related to the 2003 Amended Plan, as the limitation period began only upon its formal adoption in 2008. However, it deferred the limitation issue regarding the sluice gate claims to the merits, as they involved questions of continuing breach intertwined with the merits. The award thus allowed the case to proceed to the merits phase on most claims.
The detail
Parties: Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados
Case number: PCA Case No. 2012-06
Outcome: Tribunal upheld jurisdiction over claims relating to the 2003 Amended Plan and deferred the limitation issue on sluice gate claims to the merits phase.
Applicable law: Canada-Barbados BIT (1996); UNCITRAL Rules (1976)
Issues in play: Definition of 'investment' under BIT Article I(f) and whether the sanctuary qualified; limitation period under Article XIII(3)(d) and whether claims were time-barred.
Read the full decision at italaw ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.