First Global growing its agency banking business

MONEYLINK CHEAPER WAY OF OFFERING BANKING SERVICES

Mcintosh-robinson made out a case for pushing forward with Moneylink, which she stated is a cheaper way of offering banking services to the Jamaican public with the cost of opening bank branches. According to the FGB boss, “the cost to open a branch is so expensive, as what we are doing (with Moneylink) is using the existing business infrastructure and team members compared to the cost of operating a branch.

The cost for operating an agent banking location, she described as “miniscule”. Mcintosh-robinson spoke about the regulatory environment for agency banking noting that each business approached as a location for agency banking has to be approved by the Bank of Jamaica.

In addition, the operators of these businesses have to pass fit and proper tests set by the banking regulators before any agent banking operations can take place. Turning to the growth in depositors, Mcintosh-robinson made mention of the spike in new customers, as a result of CARE payments going through the bank to be distributed to beneficiaries.

Almost 11,000 beneficiaries signed on as depositors but this has bottomed out to 7,500 active account holders, as many of the beneficiaries didn’t maintain their banking accounts.

THE Bill in respect of legislation to be named the Dogs (Liability for Attacks) Act (referred to as the Bill in this article) has been passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Bill requires the approval of the governor general and it must be gazetted in order for it to become law. This is all expected to take place in short order, and has many dog owners concerned about how to keep their dogs, in some instances man’s best friend, under control, for fear of ending up ‘in the dog house’ for injury caused by their dogs.

This article, while reviewing provisions contained in Bill and its impact on dog owners and occupiers of premises where dogs are kept, also explores the treatment of dangerous dogs in another jurisdiction.

DOGS LIABLE TO BITE THE HANDS THAT FEED THEM

Under the Bill, injury means injury to an individual or animal and includes death, disease or impairment of physical condition. In the case of an individual, mental impairment may also be considered an injury.

The owner of a dog includes the owner or occupier of a premises where a dog is kept, the person having custody or care of a dog at the time of a relevant injury and where the injury is in a public place, the person who caused the dog to be in the public place. In other words, one does not have to own a dog to be liable for injury caused by it. However, a person may not be liable for damages if it can be shown that at the time of the injury, the dog was in the custody or care of another person.

Also, the occupier of a premises (building or land) or public place includes any person having a duty of care to visitors and that includes a tenant. The issue of an unlawful occupier may be an interesting one where the ownership of a dog, which has caused injury, is concerned. Under the Bill, the occupier of any place where a dog is kept or permitted to live or remain shall be presumed the owner of the relevant dog. The Bill allows for more than one person to be presumed the owner of a dog and therefore, it is possible for more than one person to be held liable for injury caused by a dog.

Dog owners, while in public places, are obliged to keep their dogs under control, ensure that dogs are on a leash or muzzled and also that dogs do not enter public places where a notice prohibiting dogs is prominently displayed.

Under the Bill, once a civil claim is made within six years of the date of an injury, a dog owner may be liable in damages/compensation for injury caused by a dog in a public place. Interestingly, the party claiming for damages need not show that the relevant dog has a mischievous propensity, the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s mischievous propensity, or neglect by the owner causing the injury.

Also, a dog owner commits a criminal offence where his or her dog causes injury in a public place. The penalties for criminal liability include a fine of up to $500,000 or up to six months imprisonment in instances where the offender was not previously warned about the same dog or any other dog. This could very well become a ‘dog eat dog’ situation! Where the dog owner was previously warned, the fine may be up to $1,000,000 or six months imprisonment. Where the injury results in death or debilitating injury to an individual, the term of imprisonment increases to a maximum of five years, or fifteen years where the offender failed to attempt to restrain the dog or assist the individual being attacked. A court may also order that a dog be euthanized at the expense of its owner.

The possible defences to civil and criminal liability include an attack by a dog against an offence being committed by the person attacked, trespass by an unauthorised person or animal, or deliberate provocation of the dog.

Although the Bill covers injury in a public place, a person is not precluded in law from making a claim for injury occurring at the premises where a dog is kept.

‘EVERY DOG MUST HAVE HIS DAY’ – JOHNATHAN SWIFT

The Registration (Strata Titles) Act which sets out the governing by-laws for strata corporations, such as apartment complexes, states that a proprietor shall not keep animals on his strata lot or common