High Court throws out WIN candidate’s account closure case against Scotiabank, recommends ombudsperson

Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 February 2026, 6:55 by Denis Chabrol

High Court Judge, Nicola Pierre on Tuesday ruled against We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) former candidate and current member, Gobin Harbhajan in his challenge to Scotiabank’s decision to close his bank account although it was in good standing.

In line with the Personal Financial Services Agreement (PFSA) that was incorporated into the account application which allows the bank to close accounts and cancel services without reason on giving 30 days’ notice, the judge found that it permits termination without cause on notice. “It is an unqualified contractual right and does not require the decision-maker to form a judgement or evaluation,” states the decision.

Justice Pierre, however, suggested that the National Assembly consider passing legislation to allow for the appointment of an independent person to investigate complaints of account closures.

She said the purely contractual nature of the banker—customer relationship that insulates the bank from liability at common law is undesirable given the centrality of access to banking services in modern life, and the move to make access to Government services digital.

“In other jurisdictions, this gap has been addressed by the creation of statutory financial services ombudspersons empowered to scrutinise account closures and terminations by reference, not to public law principles of natural justice, but to a statutory standard of whether the bank acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances,” she said.

Justice Pierre also said Mr Harbhajan could not successfully claim that the bank breached procedural fairness because its decision to terminate the contract could not be reviewed in accordance with public law.

The duty to observe procedural fairness is a public law duty as the bank was not administering a government scheme, acting under delegated statute or otherwise performing a public function. “The duty to observe procedural fairness is a public law duty,” the judge states.

The court also refused to issue a declaration that WIN remains a distinct entity from its individual members and that no sanctions have been imposed on the party or its other candidates. Justice Pierre says “no evidence has been adduced to establish the sanction status of the party or its candidates.”

On the issue of distinctness, she relied on a High Court decision that an unincorporated political party does not have legal personality.

Scotiabank, by affidavit of Mr. Vibert Jones, admits the account was in good standing and that it was terminated by letter dated 7 August 2025. He denied that the letter stated “breach” as the cause; that the Applicant suffered reputational harm; that termination was due to WIN affiliation; and that it lacked a lawful reason.

The judge’s decision noted that Mr Jones said he had no knowledge of Mr Harbhajan’s WIN affiliation or the sanction status of the WIN leader, and had no knowledge that the bank closed the accounts of all WIN members. The bank denied any failure to follow policy or guideline, any breach of natural justice, or Anti-Money Laundering Countering of Financing Terrorism (AMLCFT) Act failure.

The judge said while Mr Harbhajan established that his account was terminated and that he is a WIN candidate, in order to succeed he must show that the reason for termination was his political opinion. “He has produced no cogent evidence that political opinion was the reason. His assertion that all WIN members’ accounts were closed by the Respondent is uncorroborated – mere assertion or correlation is insufficient,” she said.

On the issue of Mr Harbhajan alleging non-compliance with the AMLCFT Act and failure to file a Suspicious Transaction Report, the judge dismissed it, saying these are regulatory obligations owed primarily to the State and supervisory authorities.

Justice Pierre adds that the applicant identifies no AMLCFT Act provision conferring a private right of action in damages for alleged non compliance. She says a breach of a statutory duty does not automatically give rise to a private right of action, unless it can be shown that Parliament intended the statute to confer such a right on individuals.