Michel Williams loses yet another battle with NBD

Michel Williams has lost yet another battle with his former employer, the National Bank of Dominica (NBD), in a 2-1 dissenting judgement by the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in favor of the bank.

Williams had challenged the bank in court after he was dismissed but Justice Brian Cottle had intitially thrown out the case and slapped him with a hefty fine instead.

In December 2008, Williams signed a contract with the bank for the post of Assistant General Manager for three years, however in a letter dated March 31, 2009 he was dismissed from his post with immediate effect. Williams, the bank claimed was terminated under Clause 7 (3) of his contract “by no fault of either party.”

The matter was taken to court and in a seven-page judgment handed down on February 3, 2011 Justice Cottle wrote, “In this case, the Claimant sought, inter alia special damages in the sum of EC$2,113,114.00. I take this to be the value of the claim. I award the defendant (NBD) prescribed cost on this amount. If my arithmetic is correct, this amounts to EC$99,894.42.”

Cottle went on to say that in the case presented the contractual provision was clear. “Clause 7 (3) deals with termination either for reasonable cause or by no fault of either party. This must mean termination without cause,” the Judge stated.

However, Williams took the matter to the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and in its just released ruling, two of the court’s justices, Justice of Appeal Pereira and Ag. Justice of Appeal, Michel, stated that the parties, having executed the agreement with the expression ‘by no fault of either party’, intended it to mean something different from ‘reasonable cause’, and to provide an additional basis for termination of the agreement, distinctly different from the basis of ‘reasonable cause.’

“Further, given all the eventualities for termination specifically covered in the agreement, the expression ‘by no fault of either party’ could only mean termination ‘without cause’.  The learned judge was therefore correct in holding that the said termination provision formulation ‘with reasonable cause or by no fault of either party’ permitted the bank to dismiss Mr. Williams without cause.  By extension, the trial judge was also correct when he found that the bank terminated the services of Mr. Williams on a ground that was disclosed or provided for in the said agreement.  Accordingly, the employment of Mr. Williams was not terminated in breach of clause 7(3) of the said agreement,” Pereira and Michel wrote.

But Chief Justice Rawlins dissented and ruled that Williams was “wrongfully dismissed.”

“Inasmuch as the trial judge dismissed the claim, it was not necessary for him to assess damages.  Having allowed the appeal, however, and having found, in effect, that the employment of Mr. Williams was wrongfully terminated by the Bank, I would remit the case to the High Court for damages for wrongful dismissal to be assessed in the normal way. It follows from the foregoing findings that, in effect, the services of Mr. Williams were terminated in breach of their 2008 employment agreement between him and the Bank.  Accordingly he was wrongfully dismissed,” Rawlins wrote.

Lawyers for Williams have indicated that they will take the matter to the Privy Council for a final determination.

Copyright 2012 Dominica News Online, DURAVISION INC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

Disclaimer: The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com and its parent company or any individual staff member. All comments are posted subject to approval by DominicaNewsOnline.com. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • contain any material which violates or infringes the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or are purely ad hominem attacks
  • a reasonable person would consider abusive or profane
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote prejudice or prejudicial hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are off-topic and/or excessively long

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

68 Comments

  1. December 25, 2013

    Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as
    I provide credit and sources back to your

    weblog? My blog is in the exact same niche

    as yours and my users would definitely benefit from some
    of

    the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with
    you. Thank you!

  2. Francisco Telemaque
    September 10, 2012

    ” Francisco, it is clear that you are ignorant of how contracts at this levels of management are written in today’s world.” (MIB).

    Frankly ” MIB” whatever that three letter means, I do not care how ignorant you think I am!

    What I do know is that I am fluent in the English language, from an layman and also from an linguistic, and grammatical point of view.

    I have signed, and personally wrote many contractual agreements in my life, and never have I read such nonsense in any of them and affixed my signature to any such garbage!

    Only an ignorant person would read something like that, and agree to be fired without a cause: Anybody who would agree to be fired without a cause is a fool, that is totally different to the expatriation date of a contract or someone violating the contract, or failing to perform.

    I do not have to debate that with you okay, because many of you in Dominica view the rest of the upside down, while you are walking off the edge of the earth, so what’s the point?

    Listen; I am in the Restate Estate business, usually when I sign a lease with a tenant for one year in the interim, if that person decides five months, eight months, or even one month after they sign the lease, they want to walk away from it, they are free to do so, however, they have to pay me in full for the total duration which amounts for one year.

    If the person stays for the duration, I usually have a paragraph in the lease which reads, after one year, it becomes automatic, and that is in the event I want to continue renting to the person, or the person wishes to continue renting from me.

    By then both the tenant and I have to focus on local rental laws, such as if I wish to terminate the tenant, I have to give to that person no less than thirty days notice, and that depends in what State we are talking about, if they wish to move the also have to give me thirty days notice, and be specific about the date they will be out of property.

    There are other legal governing factors I will not disclosed, because to you that will not make any sense, based your opinion that I am ignorant, so:

    If the refuse to pay for the full year as they agree to in the contract, and I take them to court, they will be ordered by the court to pay me for the full year, and mind you there may be a penalty for breaking the lease.

    So, your comments about how contracts are written at such and such a level, is simply hog-wash, there are no special or specific way a contract is written, okay, their are no guidelines: what matters is what is written, and agreed too by the individuals involved.

    Once you sign your name it; becomes law, it becomes a legal, and binding agreement; now there are times when someone signs something which may not be in a public interest, and may become detrimental to the public, and public interest, the court will not hesitate to quash such agreements, but in this case, Williams decided his faith the day when he agreed that he could be fired at any moment, even if he had decently, and visited the toilet too often in a day.

    I think you are the ignorant one, so check your head to see if your horns are made out of cardboard, mine is from out of solid cartilage in the form of ivory!

    • Francisco Telemaque
      September 10, 2012

      Okay I screwed up on that one; there are a few errors: (decently should read ) dysentery, meaning ” diarrhea” and visited the toilet.

      The rest are all trivial, so I hope you can read between the lines.

      And since I know you are going to get confused with the inter-change of terminology here let me define dysentery:

      ” Any of a number of disorders marked by inflammation of the intestine, especially of the colon, with abdominal pain, tenesmus, and frequent stools often containing blood, and mucus.

      The causative agent may be chemical irritants, bacteria, protozoa, viruses, or parasitic worms.

      Note: adj., dysenter’ic.

      Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

    • amused
      May 7, 2013

      Francisco needs to get acquainted with the thesaurus or else get a proof reader for his comments. ‘He who knows not that he knows not’….
      I find his claims to being an intelligent writer amusing. Anyway it all makes for a litlle entertainment. I hope that is what he intends his diatribes to be because his command of the written word is not as extensive as he believes. Anyway I suppose we all have our little quirks. Can you guess what mine?

  3. my turn to laugh
    September 9, 2012

    Michel is only reaping the seeds he has sewn. He was part of the higher ups who ganged up and Fired milton Sebastian after 19 years of dedicated service to ndb.Today he is reaping the seeds he once sewed.when you dig a pit for your brother you will fall in it especially if your brother did not deserve it. So hahahaha :-D Michel I am hoping you are enjoying being in the position you once put milton in.
    sebo won his case got his settlement and is ten times better off today than he was yesterday . You cannot say the same at this point in time.
    The Evil you do will follow you
    Take that in your skin. I am rejoycing because i suffered when milton suffered. The others soon to follow. Deganz gone already. say what you all dominicans want about my comment My bank account is who I cry to when i need and it never fails me so I don’t care a damn.

    • Magweh sah..mwen de
      September 11, 2012

      Not Milton alone they did it to, there were others. Their complete and callous disregard for others was the order of the day.

  4. The Baptiste
    September 9, 2012

    I was not aware that Dominica was an “At Will Employment Country”. By all comments above, it is clear that dominica is not an employment at will country, so how in God’s green earth can someone arrive at a conclusion that anyone would agree to be terminated without cause? One needs not be a legal scholar to answer so simple a question.
    I totally agree wih the poster who said that the manner in which the bank used that particular clause was disengenous.
    I do not want to opin on the matter, but it seems to me a pattern of operation in Dominica that younger Dominicans are been denied the opportunity to manage Dominican Institutions, and from this perspecctive i will approach the matter. I rather take a broader view than just Mr. Williams, with whom I had the pleasure of working for a short time.
    I had my share of issues with the bank, but to this day they do not say that I was terminated, in fact they paid me my full contract and gratuity, in fact I had three months of paid vaccation.

    The issue was the manner in which Vance choose to behave, thus exposing the bank to legal liability, and that is why there must be a board of directors who understand all those factors when selecting anyone to head the bank.
    First DeGannes thought he was a lawyer, and the board should not have allowed themselves to be led down that path where a potential local person could again lead the bank.

    • budman
      September 10, 2012

      i don’t understand your post at all. i am not merely talking about your spelling/grammar but the arrangement of your ideas. read the last sentence and tell me if it gels with what APPEARS to be your earlier points.

  5. pas memoire puole
    September 8, 2012

    Michel really should guide us ,,what really was he fired for ?
    was it that he did not meet certain expectations to give loans to persons of influence ?
    was he not responding to demands of the past or is it present Manager in the area of loans to priveileged persons which may or not be meeting normal practise and requirements ?.. if cause was not stated what is the reason then to use the escape clause ?
    something stinks !.. memeories of Corbette and Louis Robinson ….Massa ? Controller ?gros bourg -petit bourg ? know your place!! ,,, who do you think you are etc. ..get the drift

  6. Hmmm! just thinking
    September 7, 2012

    There is no good in rejoicing at another human beings misfortune but what goes around comes around, that’s just how it is. He was part of the crew who meted out the same treatment to other managers and staff. He would strut about the bank too large to greet staff. You had to be in the bring come bring go train to get anywhere promotion wise. People in management should learn that they don’t stay at the top forever. It is always best to treat people right, as you would want to be treated because you never know where you will fall. Still, I wish him well.

  7. Resident
    September 7, 2012

    In Dominica everybody knows everybody. The Legal system are like politicians, they will receive to look deeper into your interest.

  8. Belle bef
    September 7, 2012

    He must have been let go for his cocky attitude! The guy thinks hi’s a peacock! More like a peapussy to me. That’s what an ego big like the world does. It makes you think you are always right. Go on pimp cockerel!

  9. Francisco Telemaque
    September 6, 2012

    Anybody who would sign a contract agreeing that their services could be terminated without cause is an absolute fool.

    Then again there are many Dominicans who read from right to left, thus they do not actually understand what they read, and eagerly sign their own death warrant.

    He bought a car ” as is ” freeing the seller from any obligations, he drove the car which broke down a few inches from where he paid for it, he felt buyers remorse, and demands his money back.

    I suppose he did not understand what he was affixing his signature to: Foxes sometimes out smart themselves.

    Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

    • Justice and Truth
      September 7, 2012

      @ Francisco

      You know ‘the fine lines’ as also in the case of insurance policies and loan applications. We are warned in Canada/ Toronto to read the fine lines prior to signing. They are seeking employment and are confident about the job. They do not give it a thought that their services will be terminated in a few weeks since the contract was for a three-year term as in this case.

      • Francisco Telemaque
        September 7, 2012

        ” termination either for reasonable cause or by no fault of either party.”

        ” this must mean termination without cause.”

        You know; Williams is either blind highly uneducated, or has absolutely no concept, or comprehension of the English language!

        How can a grown man, assume to be educated in an English speaking system, capable of engaging in employment in a nations bank, and his understanding of the English language seems to be equal, or beneath that of an elementary first grade student?

        Right here: “reasonable cause or by no fault of either party. that is all it takes to fire him.”

        He rendered himself, and his service powerless at the hands and mercy of his superiors.

        What he had no clue about is that he made it easy for him to get fired even for getting to work one minute late on any day of the week.

        This is a first, and although some people deem the court political, no judge needed a jury to rule against this guy; he settled his faith the day when he was in a hurry to pick up his pen, and show nice and stylish he could write his signature.

        To me he is a simple person who looks at the camera when the picture is taken, and never thought of the results, as to what the real picture after the negatives are developed will look.

        In any event, it matters not in what court this matter is heard, even if the bush lawyers judge, and magistrates in Wesley get on his case they too would have to rule against him.

        Why?

        Because anytime two people in a sound mind, was not coerced into singing a contract or stipulation of any kind; it becomes a binding stipulation, and must be honored by the courts, unless one of the two can prove that on the day they affixed their name (their signature) to the document, they were mentally ill, (crazy) to a point of been demented and someone took advantage of their vulnerability.

        Otherwise there is no way any court can rule in their favor.

        Even if he had an attorney sign that document on his behalf, he and him alone is responsible; the only thing he could have done in this case is sue his attorney for malpractice, and that would be difficult.

        Perhaps in a kangaroo court that can happen, nevertheless, I doubt that ours could be that low in the Caribbean.

        Williams does not have a single leg to stand on, he has no complaint, and shall never prevail against the Bank!

        My conclusion is simply this, he was so eager to become as they say in Dominica, (a big-man ) in the country, and the bank, that he may have simply sign without reading.

        If Memory serves right, perhaps he can talk to my cousin Lois Robinson, and my friend Julius Corbette who has had their share of difficulties with that same Bank.

        One have to be careful when dealing with that bank as an employee

        Francisco Etienne-Dods Telemaque

    • Dizzy
      September 7, 2012

      That’s actually a very common part of an employment contract. Manyyyy companies do that especially in the US… Its written in the fine print. I would know because my job contract states that and I’m definitely not a fool.

    • Think about it
      September 8, 2012

      If it was the other way where the employee leaves the employer or ends his contract shortly after it started; would you consider the employer to be a fool to enter into such a contract? Any one of the parties should be able to move on when they feel like. Why must an employee be forced to stay with an employer until the end of a contracted period if things are not working well for him, particularly if he is presented with more favorable opportunities else where?

    • MIB
      September 9, 2012

      Francisco, it is clear that you are ignorant of how contracts at this levels of management are written in today’s world. You called the guy a fool, but the truth is that most contract at senior managerial levels all have the clause of termination without caused.

  10. Jude Nicholas
    September 6, 2012

    I really feel sorry for Mitchel Williams. But i guess this is the Law. Where was the Lord Chancellor of Morne Daniel on this one?

    • Justice and Truth
      September 7, 2012

      @ Jude

      I feel sorry for him too and that he has to go through this. It must be stressful for him including costly. May God assist him.

  11. rustwindow2crome/ kT
    September 6, 2012

    Those who are place to manage usually comes up with some kind of formula to get rid off you. Bro seek justice to many times people take your bread away from you and want to justify it with all kind of technicality. In Dominica it always have some one who think that there judgements are greater than the mighty one.They are the perfect person for any job and some time they get rid of you to put there people in your position. it is time those companies pay for there liabilities. Boy go all the way seek redress for Wat ever grievance you have.Dominican to bloody wicket-ed.Thats why crime will always be……..

  12. non-resident
    September 6, 2012

    don’t give up bro!

  13. Anonymous
    September 6, 2012

    This judgement is yet another example of why we should not have this CCJ as the final appellate court in the Caribbean.
    A “termination at will” clause, as this is known, is never intended to operate as the bank has done. “by no fault by either party’ does not mean and can never be interpreted as termination without cause like the two other appeal judges have stated. This opinion shows a distinct lack of scholarship and a disconnect with modern legal thinking on the part of these two judges. I can’t believe that in an age when legal research is relatively easy for lawyers, these judges are so ignorant.
    Justice Rawlings is correct when he said that, Williams was “wrongfully dismissed.” Clauses of this nature are meant to protect employers in times of change, for example in the nature of their business or policy ,It allows for things like redundancy.
    Hey Observer, I hope you can give us the benefit of your superior knowledge on this one.

    • Justice and Truth
      September 7, 2012

      @ Anonymous

      I reside overseas. Is this bank not government-owned and operated? If it is why is there such a clause in the Agreement? Please set me straight on this one.

    • Frank Talker
      September 7, 2012

      Mr. Anonymous, I actually like your opinion and I clicked “like” on your comments. But we slightly disagree on the operation of “no fault by either party” clause in contracts. Actually, I have such a clause in my employment contract and I signed the contract knowing fully the implications if the clause is used by my employer. You see, in the old days of Master and Servant employment relationships, the servant held office “at the pleasure of the master.” This meant that the servant could be terminated for any reason and even for no reason. Courts of law enforced this practice and this became the common law. Over time, Parliaments began enacting laws to protect the rank and file employees who did not have the sophistication and capacity to seek legal services when their employment was threatened. So laws were passed in most jurisdictions to protect the “unprotected” rank and file employees and to remove them from the common law. In Dominica, we have the Protection of Employment Act which protects rank and file employees. But persons higher up the employment ladder, managers, are excluded from the protection this law gives. The common law still applies to them. At one point in our history, almost all laws were common laws. Parliament has to specifically create a law to prevent the common law from having its say. So where Parliament does not pass an Act in Parliament, the common law still has effect. So the parts of Michel’s contract which dealt with termination was based on the common law plus whatever else the parties themselves agreed to. Michel’s contract would have to expressly state that “termination at will does not apply”, if his employment was to be spared from this common law practice.
      I think I have said enough on this matter. Readers must now be trying to identify me so let me move on to another exciting article on DNO.

    • Anonymous
      September 8, 2012

      I agree with anonymous. I don’t think it is intended for such a clause to be used by an employer arbitrarily.This happens too often in our country; in a struggling economy and big institutions take advantage of these apparent subtle clauses to get rid of vulnerable employees for their own selfish reasons. It just should not be allowed to happen.

  14. lool
    September 6, 2012

    eh beh mi lagens. mwen pany, mwen vleh!

  15. MUDD
    September 6, 2012

    Micheal do you remember when you first came to NBD. When you where being introduce to the staff you told one secretary “the next time I’ll be seeing you is to give you a letter of termination”. My brother what goes around comes around.

    • Peeping Tom
      September 6, 2012

      Well, maybe the secretary was deserving of that letter. How about that?

    • same person
      September 6, 2012

      i think you are the secretary that was doing all the dirty work for degeannes

    • Justice and Truth
      September 7, 2012

      @ MUDD

      I believe I read this in a previous article on this matter. What transpired between them? Something must have occurred which caused him to make such a statement. Would it be that she was insubordinate? Let us know both sides of the story; not only one side.

      • Resident
        September 7, 2012

        Mudd said he was being introduced to the Staff members, that meant he was recently hired.

      • lol
        September 7, 2012

        and what would make someone make a statement like that while they were being introduced to staff??/

        Something missing!! I am not just swallowing you all soup!

    • bondiay!
      September 8, 2012

      for true?! ay-lass!

  16. Justice and Truth
    September 6, 2012

    Some human beings do not treat other human beings with dignity and respect especially bad employers who are also not just. This is an unfair Contract. The wording, ‘dismissed without just cause’ is unfair. It is also discriminating. Such employers commit a grave injustice against employees who are under contract.
    Employers could terminate employees who are on contract for any personal reason that they deem fit without giving them a reason. This does not sound right to me. The government should never allow this. Dominica is in dire need of a useful Labor Law and Human Rights Commission to protect employees.
    This Contract should be burned, destroyed or shredded and a new one written up for employees with the exemption of that unfair Clause.
    New employees who are offered a position on a contractual basis should read the wording prior to signing it and accepting the position. They should be wary of accepting such a position with this type of wording. Why accept a position knowing that you could be dismissed at any time without just cause? Employees are also seeking job security. This is no job security. I would not feel comfortable in such a position. Contract positions do not offer job security, vacation, medical/hospital insurance and pension. In this expensive age why bother to work under these conditions?
    Employers gain while employees lose. Those employers do not operate by the Golden Rule. They only think of the money they can save while offering their employees only a salary. I hope the salary is sufficient for their livelihood.

    • same person
      September 6, 2012

      do like tony use the term constitutional rights

    • Justice and Truth
      September 7, 2012

      Why give me thumbs down? I wrote the truth. The truth offends. Too bad for you. :twisted: If you are not employed in a contract job, in future you may experience it or you may know someone who will. The time is now to change this type of clause.

  17. Asterix
    September 6, 2012

    It’s rather interesting that the Chief Justice ruled in his favour but the other two appeal judges ruled the opposite

  18. Observer
    September 6, 2012

    In another blog (Process for selcting the President) I argued that lawyers who read the same sections of law or sections of contracts do come up with different interpretations based on their opinion of what is written. when such a situation exist, it is the High Court we all turn to for redress. In this instance the expression “by no fault of either party” required an interpreation. The court was approached for relief and two courts have ruled. In all four judges, men who are traiend in the understanding and practice of law have ruled on the matter. there is a suggestion that the matter is still not over and that a further three other judges living in the U.K may be asked to interprete the law vis a vis the expression “by no fault or either party”.

    It just underscores the point that arguments made in the public domain, particularly politically charged arguments find no place in a court of law. The law take precendencve and it is the court that is auhtorized to interprete the law as it is applied top our every day lives.

    But why would somebody sign a contract agreeing to be fired at “will and without cause”? Did he undertsnad what he was signing, or was that section hidden in the bank’s fine print as usual?

    • Frank Talker
      September 6, 2012

      Very good observations and very good questions, Observer. Rank and file employees in Dominica are protected by statutoty law (Chap 89:02) from arbitrary termination of their employment, but another category of employees, generally referred to as ‘managerial employees’, are not protected by that legislation. They have to find protection in the contract of employment and common law. Under common law, a manager can be fired for no cause because the statute law does not protect him; it protects the rank and file employee. So no employer will give up this right to be able to terminate a manager for “no cause”. Every employer want to be able to tell a manager “ba-bye” if it becomes prudent to do so. You will therefore find in many contracts, a provision for the contract to be terminated by the employer by simply serving notice, reasonable notice, to the manager. And even when the contract is silent on the matter of “no cause” termination, the employer can still rely on the common law and terminate without cause. The issue in Michel’s case may be that the bank terminated him “for cause” but used the “no cause” section of the contract. If the “cause” for which he was terminated amounts to genuine grounds for termination, his lawyers should sue for “wrongful” termination. He was likely fairly terminated but the process and procedure were wrong. I believe this is what the Chief Justice was hinting to. Why don’t Michel give me the job to advise his lawyers?

      • Justice and Truth
        September 7, 2012

        @ Frank Talker

        Yes, management fall under a different category as their subordinates, admin. ass’t., secretarial, clerical. This is not fair to them.

      • Papa Dom
        September 7, 2012

        I am in agreement with much of what you said especially as pertains to the opinion of the chief justice. My one issue is with your statement that management employees are not protected against arbitrary termination. As I’ve said in my other post (anonymous,using a different PC)The term without cause does not mean, to use a phrase by PJ, “just like dat” because there must always be a reason for termination. I haven’t examined the entire contract but from what I’m reading here it would appear that the clause is in fact null and void. In law any such clause which could be construed as being an unfair contract term, should be clearly stipulated and not part of a broader clause; but then again what do I know? I am no lawyer and Observer says that the courts are the only ones to interpret law.

      • Frank Talker
        September 7, 2012

        I see your point, Papa Dom, but the term “without cause” means just that. It means that the employer is not required to state a reason if he uses that clause to sever an employment relationship. And there is nothing illegal about the use of this clause. It is the common Law. The clause also cannot be construed as being unfair because both parties of sound mind and intellect read and agreed to the clause and signed the contract. They both had unimpeded access to independent legal advice, therefore Michel cannot argue that he was unfairly influenced to sign and accept the contract. Bye.

    • Observer
      September 7, 2012

      Why would any intelligent person want to accept such a condition and sign on the dotted lines?. Was he singing for his super as some would say? No, I don’t think so. Was he part of the ruling cabal? I do not know. Or was it a situation where he felt so confident about himself that he could not be fired or that conversely he is free to leave without giving any previous notice to his bosses? Or was it plainly stupidity on his part? Here it is a very senior management person is agreeing with his bosses that they can fire him at will without a cause and he is signing the contract. When that provision of the contract was invoked he is shouting foul. Was he held hostage? Never heard so. Why sign ageering that your boss can fire without cause and then cry out later. Something is amiss.

      The law require some clarity justlike the constitutional provisions for the President. Mr. Williams and his lawyer have a view.The bank has one view.The chief Justice (albeit in the minority) has one view,that of Mr. Williams and two other Appeals Court like the bank and its lawyers have a view. Who is right?

      All we must seek after is a proper interpretation of the law.

  19. budman
    September 6, 2012

    I hope Michel has the money to continue this fight.

  20. Attitude
    September 6, 2012

    Dismissed by no fault of either party? So the bank just got up one day and decided to dismiss him out of the blue? Was it his lucky day? Then if there was no fault for dismissing him, then pay him for breaking the contract. Ay ay!

    • Joe
      September 6, 2012

      Same thing talking out of ignorance, where did you read he was not paid?

      Thye bank paid him all what was due to him, i think he is just wasting his time and money going so far with that, the case is clear..

      When you meet him ask him how much he was paid and why is it that he is not satisfied!!

      He aasked for $2.12m hope is not he that pay them that..

  21. VI Diaspora
    September 6, 2012

    Michel, my friend

    You are learning the hardest lesson. The courts in the EC know which side their bread is buttered and are ruling consistently for the governments. Recall the recent case in DA where Cottle decided that the PM and St Jean did not have to defend themselves. You cannot get justice in the OECS. Not with those ambitious judges wanting to get on the Appeals court.

    Go to the Privy council. They do not control that.

    • Joe
      September 6, 2012

      Hope you help him with the bill!!!

    • Anonymous
      September 6, 2012

      Who was the judge who ruled for Edison James against Ian Douglas? The Privy Council?

      • Resident
        September 7, 2012

        The Privy Council is a court, not a judge

  22. scotland yard
    September 6, 2012

    give up bro

    • Attitude
      September 6, 2012

      No! I say he fight until there is nothing else to do.

  23. Frank Talker
    September 6, 2012

    Something is wrong with either the reporting of this matter or the facts of the termination. Here’s what I mean,
    i. Williams, the bank claimed was terminated under Clause 7 (3) of his contract “by no fault of either party.”
    ii. Accordingly, the employment of Mr. Williams was not terminated in breach of clause 7(3) of the said agreement,” Pereira and Michel wrote.

    Did you see the conflicting statements? Read i and ii above again. The bank fired him under clause 7(3) yet the appeal justices said he wasn’t fired in breach of clause 7(3). It seem to me that Williams was terminated “for cause” but the bank used clause 7(3) to do so. So while he may have been found quilty of violating a disclosed condition of the contract, the bank “hid” behind the “no fault of either party” part of clause 7(3) to get rid of him. Williams may have done something which qualified for termination but the bank used the wrong section of the contract to fire him. His case therefore should not be for unfair or illegal termination but for wrongful termination. He will succeed if his Attorneys revise his appeal and sue for wrongful termination.

    • profiler
      September 6, 2012

      He was fired in accordance with clause 7(3). This clause gives either party the right terminate without cause.

      • J
        September 6, 2012

        Precisely! Great minds think alike :)

    • J
      September 6, 2012

      No; you misunderstand the language. There is no contradiction in the two statements:
      i. Williams, the bank claimed was terminated under Clause 7 (3) of his contract “by no fault of either party.”
      ii. Accordingly, the employment of Mr. Williams was not terminated in breach of clause 7(3) of the said agreement,” Pereira and Michel wrote.

      In fact, the second point supports the first. In other words, the employment of Mr. Williams was terminated in accordance with clause 7(3) of the said agreement.

  24. Opinionated
    September 6, 2012

    These companies think they can screw with people’s lives. These banks practice legal highway robbery with their sickening interest rates which holds the poor to ransom.

    May God curse the dealers of usury (interest), it’s witnesses, the borrower and the lender. Amen.

    It seems this is what these companies do, they pretend to give you a contract of surety for e.g 3 years and due to a technicality in the “contract” the company’s reputation is protected. When the big shots want to get rid of people who will be forthcoming expenditures in their projection they get a way to “fire” these people. They know fully well that the waiting period for compensation is long and these companies “buy off” crooked lawyers like themselves to defend their dirty policies. May God’s curse and wrath be on these people. Amen.

    • Joe
      September 6, 2012

      I wondder what work you do? Is foolish people like you that does encourage people to thief and remain small, is that type of mentality, i guess you are unemployed and still at your grand parents home, an old wooden house you claim as your personal property!!!!!

      Get a life boss we owe that to ourself…

    • Justice and Truth
      September 6, 2012

      @ opinionated

      You are correct! Customers are the ones who are bilked while they get rich, specifically big businesses.
      Sometime ago I recall reading in the Old Testament that ‘interest should not be charged.’ Interests increase annually. Of course, this is how those banks make a profit.
      As a consumer, you may have noticed that goods are increased but the containers are much smaller to the point the contents are inferior and health-wise of little substance, if none at all. It is overcharging and offering less or no value. As an example bottled products, packages of face tissues and rolls of toilet paper are much smaller than ever and the list goes on…
      I believe that weight and measure and cost are also addressed in the Old Testament in a condensed term. The words of the prophets are the Word of God.
      Yes! Our patient God will recompense them in His own good time.

      • Roz
        September 7, 2012

        So banks should not charge money to loan you money? In the same way, savings in a bank should not generate interest. Because it is technically the customer charging the bank for using his money.

  25. Support
    September 6, 2012

    You lose twice, you still going privy council? My goodness, cut your losses and move on..

    • bwa kwaieb
      September 6, 2012

      What sense would it be to give when there’s a third option? Giving up is for losers! Michel go all the way. It’s the principle! Don’t let people walk on you and your family. Dealing with people in DA and the Caribbean that can be so malicious is very suffocating. I know! I hope that you’re able to explore options another place if you desire.

      • Justice and Truth
        September 7, 2012

        Note that those who do not like what you and others stated which is the truth, give thumbs down. They are not fair.

    • Kicks
      September 6, 2012

      Money he have so. :lol:

    • Justice and Truth
      September 6, 2012

      @ Support

      If he so wishes, he reserves the right to pursue it further if there is a higher Court.

      • Attitude
        September 6, 2012

        And there is the Privy Council….Michel move fast before CCJ gets here.

    • #I AM DE BOSS#
      September 6, 2012

      Amen to that sister or brother………..cut your losses and move on…………..but on another hand i wonder where he getting all this money for lawyer fees etc……..hmmmmmm!!!!!!!

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available