Fitz Jackson, Scotiabank head to trial over fees

A FINAL round of mediation between lawyers representing Member of Parliament (MP) Fitz Jackson and Scotiabank, over the fee applied to encashing a cheque, ended in a stalemate yesterday, forcing the matter to go to trial.

The mediation was ordered by the court to determine if the two parties could settle the dispute instead of going to trial, after Jackson filed a lawsuit against one of the country’s largest commercial banks in the Supreme Court in July last year.

Annette Henry, one of two lawyers representing the Opposition MP in the matter, told The Gleaner yesterday that talks failed after two rounds of discussions.

She said details of the mediation could not be divulged because of a confidentiality agreement, but noted that Jackson’s team is confident that the court will rule in his favour.

“We’ve looked at the laws, we’ve done our research and we’re starting to put our positions and arguments together. So, based on our reading of the law, we’re quite confident that the encashment fee being charged by the Bank of Nova Scotia is unlawful and not in keeping with the law,” said Henry, who is working alongside Anthony Williams on the matter.

“It is along that line that we’re pressing on with a view that the court will confirm our claimant’s position that this is a breach of the law,” she added.

Williams, who also spoke with The Gleaner, said unless Scotiabank puts forward a position that would cause them to pause and consider, the team will be pressing ahead to trial.

“We are not just confident, we are extremely confident that the court will grant the declaration being sought in this matter,” he said.

Efforts to reach attorney-at-law Maurice Manning, of Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co, who represented Scotiabank in the mediation process, were unsuccessful yesterday.

Jackson, the St Catherine Southern MP, filed the lawsuit after a May 2019 incident in which he, a five-term lawmaker, claimed he was compelled to pay a $385 fee before a teller at Scotiabank’s Portmore branch would cash a $2,500 cheque in his name.

He is seeking a declaration from the court that Scotiabank, through the imposition of the fee, has breached its obligation by failing to honour a negotiable instrument.

Section 73 of the Bills of Exchange Act defines a cheque as a negotiable instrument and stipulates that it must be honoured on demand without conditions, Jackson’s attorneys have contended.

Henry believes that Jackson’s challenge opens the door for a possible landmark ruling that would delve a body blow to local banks and their operations, many of which are fuelled by a range of fees.

“We’re of the view that when the court makes such a declaration as he is seeking that the encashment fee is unlawful that it will have implications not only on the defendant bank but the banking sector.

“At minimum, persons would be able to look at what they are doing and if it is that the court decides and rules that the encashment fee is unlawful then one would think that other banks looking would not do so without [acting].

“So, it has implications for the public and Mr Jackson is prepared to pursue that based on the fact that he was charged a fee and the effect of this is not only limited to him,” Henry said.

Jackson, who introduced a banking services bill in Parliament that was rejected by government members in 2018, has maintained that local banks are greedy.

“Given the public interest and nature of these unlawful charges, I hope that this matter will be speedily concluded,” he said.

kimone.francis@gleanerjm.com