The case examines how courts can protect a contractor’s property and project interests while a public-sector contract dispute is sent to arbitration.
Appeal follows access to two hospital projects
Austrian healthcare infrastructure firm VAMED Engineering GmbH has asked Guyana’s Court of Appeal to overturn a Full Court decision permitting the Ministry of Health to access the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital and New Amsterdam Hospital Campus sites and continue works while arbitration proceeds. VAMED says the Ministry has moved onto the sites and removed, opened or interfered with company property, including 52 containers, cranes, generators, construction equipment and materials. The company says the containers are valued at more than EUR32 million and that the conduct is causing ongoing and irreparable harm. Those claims are part of the appeal and have not been finally determined.
The dispute is about protection before arbitration
VAMED’s lawyer, Nigel Hughes, argues that the orders made by trial judge Renita Singh on August 6 were preservation orders, not injunctions against the State. They required the Ministry to preserve the hospital sites, containers, equipment, contractor documents, designs, plans and intellectual property, while preventing interference with specified property. VAMED’s security personnel were permitted access to the Georgetown site only to secure the containers and equipment. The company says the Arbitration Act 2024 gives courts power to grant interim measures supporting arbitration. The Full Court took a different view, holding that the orders had an inadequate legal foundation and could not avoid the statutory prohibition on injunctions against the State simply by being called preservation orders.
The legal distinction matters in public contracts
The case illustrates a recurring procurement issue: a contract can be disputed in arbitration while the underlying project, equipment or records remain exposed to damage, removal or disruption. An interim measure is designed to preserve the position until the arbitral tribunal can address the dispute; it does not decide which party is right on the contract. VAMED says the Full Court’s decision leaves it without protection while the tribunal is being constituted and conflicts with the purpose of the Arbitration Act 2024. The Attorney General’s Chambers argued that the State Liability and Proceedings Act prevents injunctions against the State, and that court rules or a different label cannot bypass that restriction.
Payment and performance allegations remain contested
The arbitration concerns VAMED’s claim for EUR45.3 million in overdue amounts for certified substantial works, including at least EUR19.5 million, variations, indexation, additional works and other contractual entitlements. VAMED has also said the government’s engineer separately estimated the administration’s indebtedness at about EUR37.94 million. The Ministry of Health has disputed the contractor’s position, citing delays, missed milestones, inadequate mobilisation of resources and an inability to maintain the pace required for timely completion. VAMED is seeking a stay of execution of the Full Court order dated September 22, 2026. The Court of Appeal has yet to resolve the appeal, and the underlying payment and performance issues remain for the legal process.
IN NUMBERS
The appeal will determine how Guyana’s courts handle interim protection for contractor property when a public hospital project is continuing and the contract dispute is headed to arbitration. It does not itself resolve the parties’ competing claims about payment, delay or performance.
Reported from demerarawaves.com, 2026-09-26. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
