Demerara Bank loses bid for High Court to throw out WIN members’ account closure cases

Last Updated on Thursday, 7 May 2026, 17:11 by Denis Chabrol

Demerara Bank on Thursday lost a Full Court appeal it filed to block six members of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) political party from challenging its decision to close their bank accounts without giving reasons.

In dismissing the appeal, the Full Court also ruled that Demerara Bank must file an affidavit in defence on or before May 21, 2026.

“The court finds that upon consideration of the appellant’s submissions in their challenge to strike out the claim, the issues raised ought to be properly canvassed in an affidavit in defence. Therefore, under the circumstances, the court finds no basis to overturn the trial judge’s decision,” the panel of Full Court judges stated. The were Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, Justice Deborah Kumar-Chetty and Justice Nigel Niles.

Demerara Bank was also ordered to pay the six former bank account holders GY$100,000 each in costs by June 1, 2026. They are Gobin Harbajhan, Denodra Park, Dexter George and Joel Ramesh, Lester Benjamin, and Denitta Parkes all of whom were represented by lawyer Darren Wade.

Demerara Bank was represented by lawyers Devindra Kissoon, Natasha Vieria and Mr A. Dev.

The Full Court also cited Demerara Bank’s decision to apply to strike out the FDA rather than file a defence contributed to a delay in the case. “This court is of the view that the appellant’s route to challenge the FDA by applying to strike out same has protracted the determination of the FDA. Moreover, considering the issues raised and the points taken before the trial judge, an affidavit in defence ought to have been filed and the substantive  FDA dealt with by the trial judge on its merits,” the decision states.

In its decision, the Full Court said Demerara Bank failed and/ or neglected to furnish the evidential basis upon which the FDA instituted is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. The court agrees that the FDA contains an arguable case and that there was reasonable ground for bringing the claim and so it is not abuse of the court process

Demerara Bank’s appeal stemmed from its decision not to file a defence to the former account holders’ Fixed Date Application (FDA) challenging the closure of their accounts, but filed a Notice of Application to strike out the FDA. The  bank contended that the FDA discloses no cause of action and/ or reasonable ground for bringing the claim and that the action was an abuse of the court’s process, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and has no real prospect of success.

Other grounds of Demerara Bank’s appeal included that the claim was misconceived, reliefs claimed cannot be grated as a matter of law, no link between the account closures and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Financing Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act, no private cause of action arises from breach of that law, the former account holders had no locus standi to institute or maintain the FDA as the bank is not amenable to public law remedies; there is no duty of good faith implied in customers’ contracts, and there is no trust or confidence owed in the closure of a customer’s account.

The six persons disagreed, saying that a cause of action exists and alleges that good faith applies to banking relationships and that the appellant breached its over-riding duty implicitly incorporated into contractual relations.

In his dissenting decision, Chief Justice Singh said, among other things, that there was no contract between the the then bank account holders and Demerara Bank. “In practical terms, failure to plead a contract in such a case would leave the court without the legal framework governing the parties’ relationship, and realistically
undermine the Respondents’ ability to show that the bank’s conduct was unlawful or arbitrary,” he said.

He also said no facts were pleaded that points to a cause of action in breach of confidence or a cause of action in breach of trust and there is no assertion that the appellant failed to protect the former clients; private or proprietary information. The Chief Justice said he was unable to find that any of the FDAs disclosed a single cause of action in their pleaded cases.

That dissenting judgment finds that all of Demerara Bank’s appeals were allowed  and the trial judge’s
refusal of the Applications to strike out the FDAs and Order that all of the FDAs were dismissed for failure to disclose a viable cause of action. He awarded costs of GY$200,000 each to Demerara Bank.