Court of Appeal overturns High Court’s ruling on ExxonMobil, EPA’s financial guarantees

Last Updated on Thursday, 7 May 2026, 18:59 by Writer

The Court of Appeal on Thursday ruled in favour of ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (Exxon) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), reversing a High Court judgement in 2023 that Exxon Mobil breached its obligations under the financial provisions of the environmental permit, according to one of the lawyers.

The Court of Appeal also overturned Justice Sandil Kissoon’s decision that the EPA breached its statutory obligations by failing to enforce the provisions of the permit.

President of the Court Dawn Gregory Barnes and justices of Appeal, Nareshwar Harnanan and Priya Sewnarine-Beharry handed down the unanimous decision.

Exxon and the EPA appealed to the Court of Appeal, which had stayed Justice Kissoon’s orders.

The Court of Appeal heard arguments from all of the parties in February, 2026.

On Thursday, it unanimously ruled that although Exxon was liable for all or any environmental damage it caused from its petroleum operations offshore Guyana, unlimited liability and financial assurance were two different concepts.

Attorney at Law Andrew Pollard related that the Court found that Justice Kissoon had erred in conflating the two concepts, and that a correct interpretation of the permit’s financial assurance provisions was that Exxon was required to lodge a guarantee in a definite amount.

The Court ruled that the EPA had a discretion under the Environmental Protection Act and the permit to accept a guarantee for a defined sum and that the judge had erred when he substituted his own discretion for that of the EPA.

Mr Pollard also said the Court of Appeal held that the EPA and Exxon had not acted improperly by negotiating the guarantee for US$2 billion and that the judge erred in substituting his discretion for the EPA’s as it was the sole body authorised by Parliament to make such decisions.

The Court ruled that the judge could not have come to the conclusion that the insurance policy lodged by Exxon and accepted by the EPA was not the type of insurance in use in the international petroleum industry, as there was no evidence before him to justify such a conclusion.

The Court set aside the orders issued by Justice Kissoon in 2023.

Exxon was represented by Andrew Pollard, SC, Edward Luckhoo, SC, and Eleanor Luckhoo.

The EPA was represented by Sanjeev Datadin and Mohanie Anganoo.

Collins and Whyte were represented by Seenath Jairam, SC, Saevion David-Longe, Melinda Janki and Abiola Wong-Inniss.

The State was represented by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, Arud Gossai and Shoshanna Lall.

Initially, the Guyana Court of Appeal had blocked the Attorney General from being a party to the case but that was thrown out by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

In giving its decision, the CCJ had emphasised that the Attorney General represents the public interest and that case was of public interest, paving the way for him to have been made a party and submit arguments.

In the High Court, Justice Kissoon had agreed with the Applicants, Frederick Collins and Godfrey Whyte that Exxon’s liability for environmental damage was unlimited and uncapped and accordingly, the guarantee which was required to be lodged by Exxon under the conditions of the permit to provide security for environmental liability had to be an unlimited guarantee.

Justice Kissoon had found that Exxon was knowingly in breach of its obligations to lodge unlimited financial assurance by seeking to lodge a guarantee of US$2 billion and that the EPA was in breach of its obligations to enforce the provisions of the permit by allowing Exxon to do so.

He had directed the EPA to issue an enforcement notice against Exxon if it failed to lodge an unlimited guarantee within 30 days of his ruling, and ordered that if it did not do so, its permit would be suspended.