THE legal dispute between Opposition Member of Parliament Fitz Jackson and the Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Limited regarding the imposition of encashment fees continues following the failure of a mediation process earlier this year. The case has now moved on to the trial process and is in the case management phase.

Jackson aims to secure a declaration that the imposition of a fee for cashing a cheque/negotiable instrument/bill of exchange violates the Bills of Exchange Act. He is also seeking compensation which includes $385 and general damages, and wants the court to consider costs, interest, and any other appropriate remedies.

“The foremost claim on it is a declaratory order that the charging of the fee is a breach of the Bills Of Exchange Act,” Jackson specified. “In other words, it is highlighting the fact that it is a breach of the law.”

“The importance of that is that once that judgment is obtained it will have application to all other banks in that their charging of the fee was, in fact, a breach of the Act,” he underscored. “I am not claiming in the suit that BNS was unfair to me. I am not claiming that they were unreasonable to me. That’s not my claim. I am claiming that they breached the law and injured me.”

The Member of Parliament explained that the need to address these charges imposed by banks is the motivation behind his amendment Bill in Parliament to tackle such issues at a regulatory and legislative level for fairness and compliance within the banking industry.

He detailed that the bill primarily aims to prohibit financial firms from charging deposit and withdrawal fees, among other objectives.

“The last time it came to a vote, all the Government members voted against it,” Jackson pointed out. “All the Opposition members voted for it. So it is clear what position either side takes on the matter. I still have it on the order paper in Parliament, deliberately so, so that it is there to be acted on at any time. There is no tabling that has to be done. All that has to be done is that the Government put it on the agenda for a sitting and pass it.”

While expressing frustration with the Government’s reluctance to support the Bill, suggesting that the banks’ influence over the Government might be a factor, he is nevertheless hopeful that it will eventually pass.

“I am an eternal optimist,” he declared. “And I believe that good conscience will prevail at some time. Will it prevail this week if it is brought to the vote or the following week? I can’t say but I am optimistic that good sense will prevail.”

Highlighting the importance of the case now before the courts, Jackson pointed out that a ruling in his favour would have a much broader impact on the banking sector given the fact that a number of banks have also been charging cheque encashment fees.

The stakes do seem to be high for BNS as they seek to avoid a judgment against them, with a section of a copy from their Further Amended Defence stating that they have rescinded their policy of charging a fee for cheque encashment.

“The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant’s claim and has discontinued all cheque encashment fees; in the case of non-customers with effect from April 24, 2023, and in the case of customers from July 10, 2023,” it reads. “The Defendant has reimbursed the Claimant the sum of Three Hundred and Eighty-Five Dollars ($385.00) which was imposed on May 3, 2019 at the Defendant’s Portmore branch.”

A judgment against BNS would also raise the question of how to compensate those who have been affected and illegally charged fees. This would present a significant challenge for the banks beyond just reputational damage. And it would also draw attention to the Bank of Jamaica as a regulator tasked with ensuring banks’ compliance with relevant laws.

Jackson believes that a ruling in his favour would influence the divided stance on his amended bill in parliament because it would be challenging for lawmakers to rule in a way that contradicts a court decision declaring a particular practice illegal.

“This case is just far more than the $385 fee,” Jackson declared. “And the implication is much, much greater. What has been done to me has been done to thousands of other people.”