A CLIENT of the Teachers and Salaried Workers Cooperative Credit Union Limited sued the company, alleging it breached its fiduciary duty and acted negligently by facilitating several unauthorised withdrawals from his fixed account, totalling $14,000.

Ephraim Morley claims in his writ that he became aware of the withdrawals around late 2018 or early 2019.

He alleges that on or around February 15, 2007, the credit union facilitated a $5,000 withdrawal from his account to an unknown person or entity despite him not having requested or authorised the transaction.

Mr Morley further claims that on or around November 23, 2011, the credit union facilitated a $700 withdrawal from his account without his authorisation.

He also alleges that the credit union processed an unauthorised $5,000 withdrawal to Providence Advisors Ltd on January 31, 2021, and another unauthorised withdrawal of $3,000 on January 22, 2015, for an unknown party.

Additionally, he asserts that on August 19, 2015, the credit union allowed an unauthorised withdrawal of $300.

“In wrongly debiting the plaintiff’s account, the defendant was in breach of its duty of care to the plaintiff,” the writ states.

Mr Morley filed his writ of summons on October 27, 2021. On November 18, 2021, the defendant indicated its intention to “file the necessary documents in response” to the claim. However, when the credit union failed to file these documents by December 7, 2021, the plaintiff applied for a Judgement in Default of Appearance and Defence.

The defendant was served an Order for Judgement in Default on or around October 25, 2023.

Assistant Registrar Jonathan ZN Deal decided that the Order for Judgement in Default was irregular and should be set aside, as it had been “wrongly granted on the basis that there had been ‘no appearance,’ ie. a failure to file an acknowledgement of service.”

He ruled that a defence the defendant filed on September 12, 2023, will stand and that the claimant must file and serve a reply to the defendant’s defence by 5pm on November 18.

He said: “The defendant succeeded in having the Order for Judgement in Default set aside, but it has done so partly on the strength of grounds set out on its Notice of Application. The defendant also failed to comply with the court’s directions, and its conduct and failure to act diligently impacted upon the orderly and timely progress of these proceedings. I make no order as to costs in the circumstances, including in respect of the hearing on 4 October 2024.”