Collins and Whyte v Environmental Protection Agency and Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. (now Exxon Mobil Guyana)
Status: Won! However, the EPA and Esso have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Date filed: 13th September 2022
The legal claims:
The case is brought by two citizens Fredrick Collins and Godfrey Whyte. They argued that the environmental permit issued to Esso on May 31st 2022 requires Esso to provide insurance and an unlimited parent company guarantee from its parent company.
The story of the Case:
The Fixed Date Application (FDA) was filed on 13th September 2022. On 16th November 2022 the EPA filed their defence denying that there was no obligation on the EPA to cancel a permit when there was a breach and claiming that the FDA was frivolous and vexatious. The judge joined Esso as an added Respondent. Esso claimed to have complied with its permit. However, the insurance document it submitted to the EPA was not for Guyana but Egypt.
On the 3rdof May 2023, High Court Justice Sandil Kissoon gave his verdict in a landmark ruling. He criticised the EPA stating that it had “relegated itself to state of laxity of enforcement and condonation compounded by a lack of vigilance thereby putting this nation and its people in grave potential danger of calamitous disaster”.
He also criticised Esso’s behaviour holding that, “In the course of these proceedings, the Court found on the evidence before it that ESSO Exploration and Production Guyana Limited was engaged in a disingenuous attempt which was calculated to deceive when it sought to dilute its liabilities and settled obligations stipulated and expressed in clear unambiguous terms at Condition 14 of the Environmental Permit ( Renewed) …”
In summary the judge made an unprecedented ruling requiring an unlimited/uncapped parent company guarantee and indemnity from Exxon Mobil Corporation.
The case also
- Established liberal rules for locus standi in public interest cases;
- Established that the Environmental Protection Agency has legal duties of transparency and accountability to the public;
- Exposed the attempts of ExxonMobil’s subsidiary to dilute its legal obligations;
- Established that ExxonMobil’s subsidiary is in breach of its permit;
- Established that the Environmental Protection Agency is in breach of its statutory obligations.
Justice Kissoon ordered the EPA to issue an Enforcement Notice to Esso to produce the insurance and an unlimited/uncapped parent company guarantee and indemnity from ExxonMobil Corporation.
The EPA and Esso lodged appeals against Kissoon J’s decision and asked for a stay. On 8th June 2023, Justice Rishi Persaud, a judge in the Court of Appeal, granted a stay of Justice Kissoon’s order for environmental liability insurance and the requirement for an unlimited parent company guarantee. The Attorney-General’s application to join the case in the Court of Appeal on the side of ExxonMobil Guyana was dismissed by the Court of Appeal but allowed by the Caribbean Court of Justice.
We have filed the following applications:
5 July 2023: Notice of Motion to discharge the stay and for urgent hearing of the appeals.
1 November 2023: Summons for the EPA and Exxon to produce a true copy of the guarantee ordered as a condition of the stay. On 19 February 2024 Persaud JA ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to order the EPA or Exxon to produce a copy of the guarantee which he had ordered Exxon to produce as a condition of the stay.
22 February 2024: Notice of Motion appealing against the decision of Persaud JA.
28 October 2024: Notice of Motion for a declaration that Exxon has not complied with the conditions of the stay and therefore the stay stands dismissed.
4 March 2025: Notice of Motion for directions to progress the case.
On 24 July 2025, following a hearing for directions, the Court ordered that the appeals by the EPA and Exxon will be heard on 19 and 20 November 2025. In addition the Court will hear an application by Exxon to adduce fresh evidence before hearing the substantive appeals.