Fight will continue
Fight will continue . Although shocked at Friday’s Supreme Court ruling which found that Scotiabank Jamaica was within its right to charge customers a fee for encashing a cheque, Opposition lawmaker Fitz Jackson is claiming as a win a decision by the bank to terminate...
The Gleaner
Although shocked at Friday’s Supreme Court ruling which found that Scotiabank Jamaica was within its right to charge customers a fee for encashing a cheque, Opposition lawmaker Fitz Jackson is claiming as a win a decision by the bank to terminate the fee.

“I gather that they have now ceased charging the encashment fee, which was indicated in their submissions coming out of this matter, so we can say that there is some margin of success in this matter, in that they have formally terminated the imposition of encashment fees,” Jackson told reporters at a press briefing at Spanish Court Hotel in St Andrew shortly after the ruling yesterday.

Attorney-at-law Anthony Williams, who led the team for the claimant, described the decision by Scotiabank as a pyrrhic victory for the claimant, which will tremendously benefit all the bank’s customers.

“They have written to us and they have also published it. They have discontinued the practice, so that is a major victory coming out of this case. Whether or not they will resile from it is another move. They may, they may not,” he said.

NOT IN BREACH

Jackson had filed a claim against the commercial bank seeking a declaration that Scotiabank, through the imposition of the cheque encashment fee, had breached its obligation by failing to honour a negotiable instrument.

Headlines Delivered to Your Inbox Sign up for The Gleaner’s morning and evening newsletters.

He contended that 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.

However, Justice Crescentia Brown Beckford, in a summary judgment handed down yesterday in chambers, ruled that the bank’s practice was not in breach of the Bills of Exchange Act or the Banking Services Act.

The judge also found that the bank’s right to charge a fee for the service in question is subject to the obligations set by the code of conduct under the Banking Services Act.

Jackson’s lawyers argued that this practice is “unlawful” because the Bank of Jamaica’s governor does not have the power to pass laws or regulations and that a code issued by the central bank that allows banking fees does not supersede legislation.

But Scotiabank had countered that banks have a custom and practice to charge the cheque encashment fee.

WAY FORWARD

Reacting to the judgment, Jackson said although it was not in his favour, he will not be daunted as the matter is a fight that he has committed to continue pursuing in the interest of the banking public.

He said the fees which are being charged by the banks, including for enquiries, deposits, withdrawals and other banking transactions, are unreasonable, unfair and unjust.

“It is unaccepted and will be resisted with every iota of energy and will, and I am prepared to deal with and all unattended cause. If somebody is not willing to stand up, all of us will remain victims of such practices,” he declared.

He noted that he currently has a bill before Parliament from 2018 that would prohibit the charging of encashment fees, among a plethora of other fees, which he has been begging the Government to pass without success.

Further to that, Jackson said the Government has refused to take any action to settle the question of the legality of the encashment fees and that a reasonable and caring government would have sought a judicial review of the practice instead of refusing to do so in the interest of justice for all the “victims”.

“What is clear is that the Government has no interest in protecting the banking public but as a Jamaican and a parliamentarian, I must do what I can do and that duty and obligation stood at the centre of the claim,” he said.

“The matter was not for my benefit, while I was the victim of the practice of the imposition of the fee which caused me to lose $385 out of a cheque for $2,500 that was a payment to me. It underscored what our research indicated – a breach of existing legislation, that is the Bills of Exchange Act,” Jackson added.

He said the case was based exclusively on the legal provision of the Bills of Exchange Act, which clearly establishes an unconditionality for the encashment of cheques.

However, he said that based on his initial perusal of the ruling, the judge totally ignored the provision and relied on the banking practice.

“But,” Jackson said, “Policy and practice cannot trump legislation and that lays at the foundation of the appeal, among other issues.”

Williams, while commending his client for making a “bold” move to challenge the matter in court, said the matter is of grave importance and, based on the interest of the public, should be ventilated further and that the team will go through the judgment and assess the way forward in terms of the appeal.

Attorney Annette Henry also appeared for Jackson, while Maurice Manning, KC, represented Scotiabank.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com
Jamaica
https://jamaica-gleaner.com/sites/default/files/styles/250px/public/media/article_images/2024/11/16/2978065/8175030.jpg?itok=oLafmNyV
https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20241116/fight-will-continue
2024-11-16
rss
Although shocked at Friday’s Supreme Court ruling which found that Scotiabank Jamaica was within its right to charge customers a fee for encashing a cheque, Opposition lawmaker Fitz Jackson is claiming as a win a decision by the bank to terminate...
Fight will continue