(a)Mr and Mrs. J were directors of a company, E Services Ltd. The company's bank accounts were always in credit often to a very significant extent and had never caused the firm any difficulties or concern.

But in mid-November 2004, a photograph of Mr and Mrs. J appeared on the front page of the local paper. They had been arrested because it was alleged that their earnings from E Services Ltd had been acquired illegally. The branch where E Services Ltd had its accounts was in a small town and it was fairly common knowledge that the company banked there. The branch manager, after phoning the firm's head office for guidance, he wrote to Mr and Mrs. J. He said that if they did not close the company's bank accounts by the end of December 2004, the firm would close them and send the couple a cheque for whatever amount was then left.

In early December 2004, Mrs. J complained to the firm. By then, she had been released on bail but her husband was still in police custody. She asked the firm to explain its proposed action, particularly since E Services Ltd had so much money on deposit. And she added that if the firm's decision was connected with the press reports of her and her husband's alleged wrongdoing (which she denied), then she thought this was wholly improper and inappropriate. The firm did not confirm or deny the reasons for its actions, and that led the couple to refer the matter to us. But in the meantime, because the couple had not closed their accounts voluntarily, the firm closed them in early January 2005 and sent Mr and Mrs. J a cheque for the balance. The couple sued for information disclosure.

Required:

 

Discuss the verdict.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The verdict in this case would depend on several factors including the laws of the jurisdiction wher... View the full answer