BTB Out of Appeals: Bevans’ $770K Payout Stands
The Caribbean Court of Justice has dismissed the Belize Tourism Board’s appeals against two former senior employees, ruling that their employment contracts were valid and enforceable.
In a judgment delivered today, the CCJ upheld earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal of Belize in favour of former Director of Tourism Karen Bevans and former Director of Marketing and Industry Relations Misty Michael.
The ruling means both women remain entitled to damages under a clause in their contracts covering termination without cause. The judgment does not state the amounts.
The ruling locks in a $770,000 award to Bevans, which the Court of Appeal upheld earlier this year, and an award of more than $200,000 to Michael.
Both women sued the BTB for wrongful termination and won in the High Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the BTB’s appeals in May and June 2025, and the BTB then took both cases to the CCJ.
The contracts each included a clause (cl 7.1.1) that entitled the employee, if dismissed without cause before the contract ended, to all salaries, remuneration and benefits for the rest of the term.
Bevans was Director of Tourism from April 2014, and her second five-year contract dated 1 April 2019. She was terminated on 12 March 2021. Michael became a contracted employee under a three-year contract dated 1 April 2020, and was terminated on 13 May 2021.
The BTB argued the contracts were void because the Board never approved the appointments before they were signed. The CCJ agreed the law was not followed. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson signed the contracts, but the Board Act gives the appointment power to the Board, and there is no record of Board approval. The Minister had approved the terms of both contracts.
The court nonetheless held that the missing approval did not void the contracts. It noted that the Minister approved the appointments, both women carried out their duties, and the Board knew of and accepted the arrangements.
BTB Wants a Final Say from CCJ on $1.2 Million Payouts to Former Employees
On Bevans, the court said “it could not have been Parliament’s intention for an appointment to be invalid where a person has been appointed by the Minister, an employment contract was executed, the person performed the contractual duties, and the members of the Board had full knowledge of the person’s appointment in that role.”
It added that “the Board cannot not now rely on the absence of their prior approval to void the contract.”
The BTB also argued that Bevans and Michael were “insiders” who should have checked whether the Board had approved their contracts. The CCJ rejected that argument.
“It is the members of the Board who are bound to ensure their actions comply with statute,” the court said. It added that people who do not sit on the Board “should not have to run a legal or fact checking exercise” to decide whether the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson can properly sign an employment contract with them.
The BTB further argued that the termination-payment clause was an unenforceable penalty. The court disagreed, finding that the clause sets out what the BTB must pay if it chooses to end a contract early, rather than a punishment for breaking it. In Bevans’ case, it noted that the identical clause appeared in her 2014 contract and that she negotiated the terms with the Minister. It said that “though it may be deemed a generous package, the clause cannot be considered penal.”
The court said a similar clause “seems to have been present in all contracts of senior employees of the BTB.”
The CCJ dismissed the cross-appeals filed by Bevans and Michael, and no order was made as to costs.
The court also commented on how statutory boards are run. It said board members owe “an independent fiduciary obligation” to the entity Parliament created and are not “rubber stamps” for government directives. It also found that the BTB and the Minister appeared to have operated “on the erroneous view that the Minister can act with sole authority.”
The court said contracts signed by state bodies under earlier administrations bind later boards unless they are contrary to legal contractual principles. It left it to the legislature to decide whether greater transparency in senior appointments is needed, noting the Board can make regulations with ministerial approval.
The BTB was represented by Eamon Courtenay SC and Iliana Swift. Bevans and Michael were represented by Rt Hon Dean Barrow SC, Darinka Muñoz and Nigel Ebanks.
The five-judge panel was led by Justice Anderson, President, with Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, Ononaiwu and Eboe-Osuji.