Puisne Judge Geoffrey Bell yesterday called into question a court order key to a legal dispute between Hardell Entertainment Ltd. against the Ministry of Telecommunications.

The parties have been engaged in a legal battle since 2003 when then Minister of Telecommunications Renee Webb issued a wireless cable licence and frequencies to World on Wireless! which Hardell Entertainment claimed as its own.

Last week, part of the dispute was settled when Mr. Justice Bell ordered current Minister of Telecommunications Michael Scott to issue Hardell a licence to operate a wireless cable system service within the 2.5 to 2.76 Ghz frequency range of the MMDS spectrum.

However the Puisne Justice retired to his chambers to rule on a second issue in the legal dispute ? whether the former Minister could lawfully grant or issue a cable television service operating licence to WOW while she was facing legal proceedings on the issue.

On the day the Minister held a press conference to announce that WOW! had won the licence, Hardell served the Minister with a document signed by then-Chief Justice Austin Ward which Hardell lawyer Delroy Duncan said prohibited her from granting a licence or allocating frequency to anyone until his client's legal dispute was settled.

Yesterday, however Mr. Justice Bell called Mr. Duncan and Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne back to court to discuss the formal order signed by Mr. Justice Ward.

Puisne Justice Bell told the lawyers that in his reading, the document did not constitute an order for an interim stay, but only granted the applicants leave to seek a stay.

He said: "If that is correct, then the issues surrounding the subsequent actions of the Minister become moot."

Mr. Duncan argued that since everyone from the Minister herself to the Supreme Court Registrar and another Supreme Court judge treated the document as if it were a stay, there should be no distinction between the pronouncement the Chief Justice made in his chambers and the document that was drafted and served on the Minister. The Solicitor General questioned the appropriateness of the order given the particular circumstances.

Arguments are to continue next week.