RSS FeedPrivy Council In Bank Ruling Wraps Jamaican Judiciary On the Knuckles, Part III
First posted on Commercial Law International on May 19, 2009.
Injunction, injunction, what´s your function?
Sorry I just could not resist. Despite my lame attempts at a joke, it is a very valid question.
What is the function of an injunction?
It is a power whereby the court may order positive action be taken or an order to refrain from acts being currently done. It may be granted at the interlocutory (that is to say at any stage before the end of a trial) or it could form part of a judge´s final judgment. In either case it is a very powerful tool of the courts and one that is not exercised lightly. Special attention, however, should be paid to the interlocutory injunction as it is a pre-trial determination, it is also a subject on which the Privy Council had a few choice words for both the Jamaican judiciary and Jamaican Bar in National Commercial Bank Jamaica Limited vs. Olint Corporation Limited.
The interlocutory injunction is best thought of as a pause button. It is designed to freeze in place the item that is in dispute by ideally preserving the status quo. However, we do not live in a static world and there are going to be winners and there are going to be losers with such an order – you could go as far as saying such an order creates only losers and worse losers. This is why judges are or ought to be extremely cautious in the exercise of this discretion. It should not be that the making of such an order – one that is done without the full rigors of a trial – be determinative of the (main) issue or issues in dispute. This is why judges look to what is called balance of convenience (American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicon Ltd) or more accurately the balance of inconvenience. As Lord Hoffman explains in the NCB case, ¨the basic principle is that the court should take whichever course seems likely to cause the least prejudice to one party or the other.¨
Having decided that Mr. Justice Jones was correct in the first instance to dismiss the case, holding that there was no triable issue, their Lordships had no need to go any further. However (a favorite word of a lawyer), their Lordships went on to deliver a dicta that wrapped the knuckles of the Jamaican judiciary and Bar – as would a school master a disobedient pupil in days of old. As many a current and former law student come to learn, while the ratio of a case deals with the issues at hand, it is often the dicta though said by the way, that is the most significant aspect of a judgment. And this I believe is the case here.
Their Lordships wanted to point out, provide some guidance and in a display of judicial politics, gave the Jamaican legal establishment scolding – that was at times not so well veiled.
There were two features of this case that troubled the Privy Council. The first was that, ¨there appears to have been no reason why the application for an injunction should have been made ex parte, or at any rate, without some notice to the bank.¨ An injunction applied for and given without presence or notice to the other party ought to be a very rare thing, ¨although the matter is in the end one for the discretion of the judge, audi alterem partem is a salutary and important principle.¨ Audi alterem partem – sorry for the Latin but it had to be done - is a fundamental tenet and a cornerstone of justice and cannot be trotted on lightly. It is the right for the other side in a dispute to be heard – like I said a cornerstone of our justice system.
Given the facts of the case, especially the nature of what was in dispute, there should have been no reason why the application for the injunction should not have been inter partes but at a minimum with there should have been some notice to the bank. As their Lordships pointed out, ¨any notice is better than none.¨ The guidance provided to judges considering such applications was made by Lord Hoffmann in no uncertain terms. He lays down the law (literally), ¨that a judge should not entertain an application of which no notice has been given unless either giving notice would enable the defendant to take steps to defeat the purpose of the injunction…or there has been literally no time to give notice before the injunction is required to prevent the threatened wrongful act.¨ The italics are Lord Hoffmann´s. Lord Hoffmann further went on to point out these two conditions are enshrined in the Section 17.4 (4) of the Jamaican Civil Procedure Rules 2002.
What characterizes both these alternatives is a sense of urgency. Olint it would seem feared that the immediate closure of its accounts would prejudice it in its main action against the bank. However such fears are not substantiated by the facts of the case. Not only was Olint given ample notice, they were given an extension. Moreover, the closure of a bank account, with or without extensive notice, is not sufficient grounds on which to say that there was no time to give notice. Their Lordships wondered why, ¨no explanation has been given for why it was not possible for the bank to be given notice of the application.¨
However, it was later explained to their Lordships that such last minute ex parte applications had become common practice in Jamaica. The recent cases of World Wise Partners Ltd v RBTT (2008) and Smith v NCB (2008) were cited as examples.
The Privy Council, expectedly, took exception to such blatant disregard for the law and the Civil Procedure Rules by both the judiciary for granting such injunctions and the Bar for applying for them. They went on to say, ¨these cases appear to show a disregard of rule 17.4 (4) for which no justification is offered. If the rule is not generally enforced, plaintiffs will be encouraged to make a tactical use of the legal process which should not be allowed.¨
Like I said a wrap on the knuckles – actually in legal terms a wrap is highly understating things.
The second feature that troubled the Privy Council was the way in which both Smith J and the Court of Appeal applied the balance of convenience test in the refusal, in the case of the former, and the granting, in the case of the latter of the interlocutory injunction. The basic principle that both had to be mindful of, ¨is that the court should take whichever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other.¨ Moreover, ¨what is required in each case is to examine what on the particular facts of the case the consequences of granting or withholding of the injunction is likely to be¨
It appears that what the Jamaican courts did was first to characterize the injunction as either mandatory (requiring positive action) or prohibitory while applying the balance of convenience test. Each requires different factors to be taken into account. A mandatory interlocutory injunction would require a ¨high degree of assurance¨ that the applicant would be prejudiced by its refusal, while a prohibitory interlocutory injunction required a ¨serious issue to be tried.¨ At first instance Mr. Justice Jones characterized it has mandatory and refused to grant it while the Court of Appeal characterized it as prohibitory and granted it.
As it turns out the judge at fist instance was correct in result but not in his reasoning. Because what matters is what the practical consequences of the injunction are, ¨arguments over whether the injunction should be classified as prohibitive or mandatory are barren (Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Films Sales Ltd). Their Lordships made it clear that they ¨consider that this type of box-ticking approach does not do justice to the complexity of a decision as to whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction.¨
Yet another wrap on the knuckles….Ouch.
It will be very interesting to see what that reaction of the judiciary and Bar will be in Jamaica. This may be a bitter pill to swallow; however, to my mind their Lordships are wholly correct in fact and in law.
Privy Council In Bank Ruling Wraps Jamaican Judiciary On the Knuckles, Part I
First posted on Commercial Law International on May 12, 2009.
The House of Lords, with its Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hat on, as Jamaica’s court of final appeal, handed down a judgment that is set to have repercussions well beyond the interests of the parties involved. In fact the consequences of this judgment go beyond just banking or investing but engages commercial dispute resolution, specifically commercial litigation.
The injunction is a very important – that should read indispensable – tool in the commercial lawyer’s arsenal. It is a power that is highly discretionary and exercised with sensitivity to the peculiarities of the case which by the way includes the idiosyncrasies judge. It is a power jealously guarded by the judiciary and as a matter of judicial comity and judicial politics the power to exercise this discretion is largely left unquestioned, with limited exception, to a judge at first instance. Therefore, whenever a court, much less the highest one in the land, is critical of the way in which this discretion is or has been exercised by other courts all involved in the legal process have right to take pause.
However before I get into what I believe to be the more important aspect of the ruling I should deal with the ratio of the case – for the non lawyers/ non Latin speakers the ratio or ratio decidendi are the reasons or rational for a decision. It will provide not only context for the more important dissuasion on injunctions but will also bring to the fore the importance of this ruling to the banking sector n Jamaica.
National Commercial Bank Jamaica Limited vs. Olint Corporation Limited, is a case that exemplifies why commercial awareness is global.
The question that their Lordships had to focus their minds on was whether a bank, by giving reasonable notice, could lawfully close an account that was not n debit, where there was no evidence of the account being used for unlawful purposes? In the judgment delivered by Lord Hoffmann, ¨their Lordships have no doubt that in the absence of express contrary agreement or statutory impediment, a contract by a bank to provide banking services to a customer is terminable upon reasonable notice.¨
The facts of the case, in brief are: Olint provided administrative and other services to an investment club. The club allegedly derived its profits from foreign exchange trading which was proffered as an explanation for its high rate of returns to its member. It opened two accounts with National Commercial Bank (NCB) in 2005 and a third in 2007. Near the end of 2006 Olint, along with other investment clubs, began to attract very unfavorable coverage in the press . They faced allegations that they were operating a Ponzi scheme where returns to older investors were being paid out of money from newer investors.
It is interesting to note that Olint and other investment clubs sprouted up as a specific market response to the lack of investment alternatives, especially for the lower and middle strata of Jamaican society. In this respect they were in direct competition with the financial establishment - the commercial banks and other financial institutions.
In August of 2007 NCB as per its anti-money laundering and terrorist financing legal obligations – but no doubt also motivated by its concerns over the fraud allegations – asked to see the audited accounts of Olint. None was forthcoming. NCB being apprehensive that the allegations could turn out to be true, opening it up for reputational damage and or claims for negligent or dishonest assistance, decided to end is relationship with Olint. It wrote to Olint in November informing them of the decision to close their accounts on December 17 – a notice period of 32 days.
This action by NCB only added to the atmosphere at the time that NCB and the financial establishment were using at best the strictures of the law or at worst under handed tactics in order to remove the competition that Olint and the other investment clubs offered. To put it in the Jamaican vernacular: dem a fight gainst man (translated: they are opposed to us) . Unfortunately, even if this is a commercial reality and I offer no opinion pro or con, it finds no basis in law.
In response on November 21st Olint asked NCB for an extension to March 14 2008, NCB believing that this period was too long agreed to extend until January 14 2008. On January 1, days before the extension period was going to expire Olint without any notice successfully applied ex parte (from (by or for) one party) injunction preventing NCB from closing its accounts until January 15th. An application inter parties (between the parties) came before Mr. Justice Jones on the 17th and 18th of March. He dismissed the application because he did not find that it gave rise to a serious issue. Olint appealed and on July 18th 2008 the Court of Appeal grated the injunction until trail.
Based on the allegations in the particulars of claim served by Olint, it did not claim that the extended period was too short, ¨instead , it is alleged that the bank was acting maliciously, contrary to its statutory obligations under the banking Act and Fair Competition Act and with the intent of inducing breaches of contract between the company and members of the investment club.¨ their Lordship review each of these agreements and had no problem dismissed each in turn as being baseless.
Stay tuned for Part II.
