Fitz Jackson Gets Court Approval To Challenge BNS Bank Fee Ruling

Member of Parliament Fitz Jackson has received permission to take his bank fee dispute with Bank of Nova Scotia to the Court of Appeal, after an earlier Supreme Court decision went against him. Jackson says the ruling gives weight to his view that the November 2024 judgment contains substantial issues that should be tested by a higher court.

The Court of Appeal has allowed him to challenge the decision handed down by Supreme Court Judge Cresencia Brown-Beckford, who had decided the matter in favour of BNS. The appellate court also paused enforcement of the costs order made for the bank, so BNS cannot recover those costs while the appeal process is under way.

The legal fight began with a May 2019 visit to the BNS branch in Portmore, where Jackson went to cash a $2,500 cheque. He was charged a $385 encashment fee, which he paid while objecting to it, and was given $2,115 instead of the cheque's full face value. Jackson's case is that the fee breached the Bills of Exchange Act, the law that deals with cheques and other negotiable instruments.

In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Brown-Beckford accepted BNS' position. She found that the Portmore location where Jackson tried to cash the cheque was not the drawee branch, because the cheque had been drawn on the Half Way Tree branch. On that basis, she concluded that the Portmore branch was not required by law to pay the entire sum without applying a service charge. The judge also ruled that there was no law expressly barring a collecting bank from imposing an encashment fee, although she noted that Parliament may need to address the matter.

Jackson has continued to argue that the judgment was affected by major legal mistakes, and his lawyers advanced that position before the appeal court. After the ruling granting him permission to proceed, he said he was pleased that the challenge can now move ahead.

"The outcome of today's proceedings at the Court of Appeal allows me to appeal the November 2024 judgment," he said. "It was the serious errors and breaches in the ruling that our legal team highlighted all along the way. This reaffirms my earlier contention that there are very strong grounds for mounting a successful appeal."

Jackson also framed the case as part of a wider concern about banking practices. "I am very pleased and encouraged in my efforts to ensure that the banks do not continue to get away with illegal fees and charges, which, unfortunately, the government has chosen to turn a blind eye to and allow them to continue."

He thanked the attorneys who represented him in the appeal proceedings, naming senior counsels Anthony Williams, Annette Henry, and Douglas Leys KC.

The matter has drawn public attention from the beginning because of what it could mean for Jamaica's banking sector. If Jackson wins the appeal, the outcome may influence how banks treat customers seeking cheque-cashing and related services.