By: Ainsley Brown
The claims advanced by Olint, though ultimately would proven to be groundless is very important because it, gave us a brief glimpse into the subtleties of judicial politics. Before I go any further some context by way of an example I believe would be useful. The words with all due respect, seem quite mundane or you could even say respectful, however, not so in a court room – it is quite disrespectful. The respect for a judge and his or her court room flow naturally from their position and there is no need to remind the judge that you are being respectful. This is something that lawyers and judges know alike, so whenever such words are uttered it is code for hey, judge I am right and you are just full of it – like I said disrespectful.
Though totally unrelated to the case, this example illustrate the point nicely, that words matter and that in the politics of the courtroom they often have much greater meaning than they seem at first glance. Now back to the case.
Olint´s first argument would provide the ground for strongest rebuke by their Lordships of the Jamaican Court of Appeal. Lord Hoffmann even went as far as calling out the reasoning or better yet lack thereof of one of the judges of the Court of Appeal – a one Morrison JA. In the Court of Appeal Morrison JA criticized Mr. Justice Jones, at first instance for disposing of the matter by way of mini-rail, holding that the matter gave rise to a serious issue and ought to be tried. However, Lord Hoffmann goes on to point out, saying of Morrison JA that ¨ he did not explain what the issue would be and their Lordships consider that one has only to read section 4(3) (c) to see that it is irrelevant to any issue in this case.¨
This is Lord Hoffmann´s way of saying: your work is sloppy and you don’t know what you are talking about. Like I said a strong rebuke.
The claim, by the way, was that s. 4(3)(c) of the Banking Act had modified the bank´s contractual right to terminate the banking relationship by giving reasonable notice. Unfortunate for Olint s. 4(3)(c) of the Banking Act is part of the general fit and proper licensing provisions of s.4, under which the Bank of Jamaica grants licenses. It therefore does not take a legally trained mind to see that Olint is simply fishing and that there is not only no serious issue here but no issue at all – no wonder the strong rebuke.
The second argument advanced by Olint was that NCB by closing its accounts was abusing its market position. As I like to call it, and to put it in the Jamaican vernacular: dem a fight gainst man (translated: they are opposed to us) argument. This argument while it has great cultural resonance, and it could be argued reflects a commercial reality; it however has no basis in law.
Firstly, no evidence was furnished that NCB did indeed have a dominant position in the commercial banking sector in Jamaica. However, their Lordships did take judicial notice that NCB was ¨the second largest in Jamaica, with 34-37% of total loans and 30-35% of total deposits, but the Bank of Nova Scotia is larger and there are four other commercial banks in Jamaica, to say nothing of the foreign banks. They are all in competition with each other. It is not easy to acquire dominant position in the banking market.¨ Secondly, even if NCB had a dominant market position the refusal to continue be Olint´s banker does not procure for NCB some market advantage. If anything it does quite the opposite by enabling ¨competitors to pick up another customer if they felt inclined to do so.¨
The third claim by Olint, was that NCB was attempting to induce breaches of contract between itself and its club members. Inducement of breaches of contract is a tort (a civil wrong) that would require not only that NCB knew that it would cause the breach of contract but that it intended to so ( OBG Ltd v Allan 2008). This by far was Olint´s strongest argument I think. However, their Lordships described it as a ¨hopeless proposition.¨ It will be remember from Part I that it was the refusal of Olint to furnish its audited books that kicked off this sequence of events. NCB could not without proper knowledge of the relationship of Olint and its members know or set out to cause breaches of contracts. What Olint was in fact saying was that NCB knew its actions would cause the breach and with this certain knowledge set out to cause the said breach of contractual arrangements. But how can you set out to cause or much less know that a breach would be caused in a contract that you haven’t even seen?
Stay tuned for Part III as it will deal with the injunction issue.