CARIBBEAN: Jamaican entertainer loses lawsuit against bank after employee reportedly drains his bank account

5
CARIBBEAN: Jamaican entertainer loses lawsuit against bank after employee reportedly drains his bank account
NOOKS… wanted court to strike out bank’s defence against his lawsuit
NOOKS… wanted court to strike out bank’s defence against his lawsuit
NOOKS… wanted court to strike out bank’s defence against his lawsuit

JAMAICA OBSERVER – Entertainer George Nooks has suffered a blow in his lawsuit which he brought against FirstCaribbean International after an employee there reportedly drained his account of $15 million.

Nooks’ setback came as Supreme Court judge Justice Bryan Sykes recently denied his application to strike out the bank’s defence against his lawsuit.

Had Nooks been successful in having the defence struck out, he would have won the case by default.

The entertainer had filed the suit after the money, which was deposited in the account in 2013, went missing.

The bank employee — Abbey-Gaye Thompson from the Half-Way-Tree Branch of the bank — has since been charged with larceny as a servant, forgery, uttering forged documents and falsification of accounts and is currently before the court.

Nooks tried to have the bank’s defence struck out on the following grounds:

* That there are no reasonable grounds for defending the claim;

* That the defence is an abuse of the process of the court; and

* That the mere denial that an employee of the defendant was not acting as servant and/or agent of the defendant does not amount to a defence.

The bank had said in its defence that Nooks and the employee were involved in an intimate relationship and that any money she drew from the account was within the context of this relationship, making it a personal matter. Nooks has, however, denied this.

With Nooks’ application being denied, the matter will proceed to trial.

(2)(0)

No posts to display

5 COMMENTS

  1. this.bank seems to always be in some story. for a judge to throw out a lawsuit seems strange esp for the reason gjven which does not make sense. Nook may be able appeal this.

    (0)(0)

  2. I live in London England and just came across this item. This news story I just read is very short for it's importance and does not say if the account holder and the bank employee, though in a relationship together held the account jointly. if that is so, I can understand the court's decision. If the account is held by one person only, it is a contract between the account holder and the bank only, no one else; not family members or any bank employees; regardless who they are. From what I have read so for from this source, the account was not a joint one and the court's decision is based only on the fact that the thief and the account holder was in a relationship. That does not give the bank employee the legal right to the account's contents and the rightful holder has been let down by everyone concerned in this case. The fact that the employee is now facing charges of larceny is in itself proof that a crime was committed, that the employee had no right to take the money; so how did the court come to this confusion. A matter of principle here: suppose this woman had shot the man, would that have been OK because they were in an relationship together!? What nonsense is this!? What was going through the Judge's head and as for the client's lawyer, is that person qualified in law; not to bring both points to the court's attention?. AS for the Bank, the client has a case against them also; along with the judge and his brief and especially the opposition lawyer who tabled that appalling suggestion. I was looking for a bank to open an account with when I retire back to the Caribbean, but unless this case or the reporting of it is justifiably made clear; then it is safe to say the bank in question will not see my feet pass the threshold of any of their branches on any island. If this case is a miscarriage of justice, then something needs to be done about certain members of the legal profession. The World is watching, what comfort does this case give to anyone visiting!?

    (19)(0)

Comments are closed.