Former Scotiabank boss William 'Bill' Clarke scored a major victory yesterday when the Court of Appeal ruled that there was an agreement for the dispute involving his retirement package to go to arbitration.

The court, in ruling in Clarke's favour, set aside the Supreme Court ruling in March this year and granted Clarke the declaration he was seeking. The bank was ordered to pay Clarke's legal costs in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

The outcome of yesterday's ruling is that Clarke will remain in the house and continue to keep the two motor cars which the bank had assigned to him until the dispute has been settled by arbitration.

Clarke went on early retirement in November last year after being with the bank for 40 years. He served as president and chief executive officer for the last 13 years. He was not due for retirement until December 15, 2015, when he would be 65.

On July 28, 2008, he was called to a meeting at the head office of Bank of Nova Scotia in Canada as a consequence of allegations of misconduct against him. A decision was taken at the meeting that he should go on early retirement, and a compensation package was offered to him. Clarke denied the allegations and rejected the offer.

no compensation package

Several meetings took place between Clarke and the bank before he retired, but there was no agreement on the compensation package. The bank had offered Clarke CAN$3.7 million, but he rejected the offer.

On December 24 last year, Clarke filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that he and the bank were bound by an agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration for a determination as to what was a fair and equitable retirement plan for him, having regard to all the circumstances.

The bank, which was represented by John Vassell, Q.C., filed a claim in February this year seeking orders for Clarke to vacate the house and return the motor cars. The bank said in its defence that there was no binding arbitration agreement. Vassell submitted that there was no written agreement to refer the differences to arbitration within the meaning and requirement of the Arbitration Act.

Justice Horace Marsh heard the matter and ruled in March that there was no binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The judge ordered Clarke to vacate the premises and return the motor cars by May 31.

Clarke, who was represented by attorneys-at-law Dr Lloyd Barnett, Keith Bishop and Kerry-Ann Ebanks took the matter to the Court of Appeal.

bound by agreement

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justice Algernon Smith, Justice Howard Cooke and Justice Hazel Harris, heard the appeal and said in its 73-page judgement that Clarke and the bank "are bound by agreement to submit to arbitration the existing dispute between them as to what is a fair and equitable retirement plan for the appellant, having regard to all the circumstances".

It was the court's finding that on October 21 last year, there was a resolution by the bank's board of directors for the dispute to go to arbitration if Clarke did not accept the compensation package.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com