THE Court of Appeal will, today, deliver its ruling on the merits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) appeal to overturn Justice Sandil Kissoon’s decision that the agency and oil giant ExxonMobil breached obligations relating to its oil spill insurance policy.

The Kingston-based court will deliver its ruling virtually by Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud, at 11:00 hrs.

Justice Persaud will rule on the merit of the appeal, as well as the application of Sanjeev Datadin, the lawyer representing the EPA, for a stay on the May 3 order that directed the EPA to issue an Enforcement Notice to ExxonMobil’s local affiliate, Esso Exploration and Production (Guyana) Limited (EEPGL), by May 9.

The order required EEPGL to provide an unlimited parent company guarantee agreement and/or unlimited liability Affiliate Company Guarantee, along with environmental liability insurance, within 30 days, as is customary in the international petroleum industry.

Justice Persaud had previously refused Datadin’s application to suspend the judgement until the appeal hearing, indicating his intention to evaluate the reasonable prospects of success and deliver his ruling before June 10, the deadline for complying with Justice Kissoon’s initial ruling.

On May 3, Justice Kissoon found that the oil giant “engaged in a disingenuous attempt” to dilute its obligations under its environmental permit for its Liza One project, by not fully meeting insurance requirements relating to environmental protections.

Datadin had moved to the Appellate court, seeking a stay of the ruling, among other things.

In the application, the EPA argued that Justice Kissoon made an error in interpreting and applying two legal provisions related to an environmental permit issued to a company called Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd.

The first provision is Clause 14 of the Environmental Permit, which is a condition the company must comply with to operate in Guyana.

The second provision is Section 31(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, which sets out requirements for financial assurances that companies must provide in relation to environmental permits.

The appellant is contending that the trial court misinterpreted these provisions and wrongly concluded that the financial assurance required of Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd. was unlimited.