Western Air Bahamas (WU, Nassau International) will not have to pay Freeport International Airport operator Grand Bahama Airport Company USD371,353 dollars in "outstanding airport fees", the Supreme Court of the Bahamas ruled on February 18, The Tribune newspaper said.
The airport authority failed to prove its claim that the carrier owed the sum for services rendered after Western Air relocated from Grand Bahama Airport Company's facilities into its own purpose-built terminal in September 2015, Acting Chief Justice Estelle Gray-Evans ruled.
The two parties had signed a lease and operating agreement in October 2009 giving the airline a three-acre site near the airport's parking area for a 20-year term. The dispute was over seven invoices the authority issued between February and April 2016, after the airline moved out, ostensibly for unpaid security, passenger facility usage, and departure fees.
While Grand Bahama Airport Company had offered to cut these charges from USD18.50 to USD12.50 per passenger, Western Air offered to pay USD4 per passenger, arguing that the airport had "refused to fully express" what services it was providing for the fees levied. During the trial, the airport operator pointed to fire and crash rescue services, control tower and navigation upkeep, facility security, and runway/taxi maintenance.
The airport authority also alleged that the defendant had "collected airport fees from each of its passengers but, instead of turning those fees over, [..] it collected and pocketed the airport fees that were rightfully due to the company."
Western Air argued that it had worked with the Royal Bahamas Police Force and a United States Transport Security Administration (TSA) instructor in setting up its own screening facilities. The carrier also said it had invested in other technology such as surveillance systems and power supply units for its aircraft.
Justice Gray-Evans ruled that Western Air was not indebted to Grand Bahama Airport Company, determining that the airport operator had failed to supply evidence showing it had provided services that justified the sum demanded.
"It is, in my view, unclear from the evidence exactly what services are covered by the charges in the aforesaid seven invoices," she said. "In the absence of evidence as to the specific services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant during the period post-September 2015 [...] I am unable to find that the defendant is obligated to pay the sum of USD371,353."
