Employment Dispute With Bank

rephrase this The Plaintiff, **** Raheem Jervis, is a former employee of the Defendant, PROVEN Group (previously known as Fidelity Group of Companies) and a customer of PROVEN Bank (Cayman) Limited previously known Fidelity Bank (Cayman) Limited. During the period of August * to May *, the Plaintiff was employed in the capacity of a Loans Assistant in the Credit Division of PROVEN Bank and then re- employed at the capacity of a Health Insurance Accounts Clerk in the Health Insurance Division at Fidelity Health Insurance during the period of September * to October *. • The Defendant, PROVEN Bank (Cayman) Limited (formerly known as Fidelity Bank (Cayman) Limited) is a financial services company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. They’re a Class A Bank and are one of only six retail banks on Island. On the 2nd of February *, Fidelity Bank & Trust International Limited (“FBTI”) completed the sale of the entire issued share capital of Fidelity Bank (Cayman) Limited (“Fidelity”) to PROVEN Bank Holdings Limited, a newly formed subsidiary of PROVEN Investments Limited (“Proven”). • The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly executed an Employee Savings Plan Loan Account Agreement on the * rd of June *, where the Plaintiff promised to pay the Defendant the sum of CI$*,*.*. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Employee Savings Plan Loan Account Agreement, the facility would be interest free for a period of 60 months and was agreed to be repaid in equal instalments of CI$*.*. On the underside of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, it states that “The Agreement will only remain in effect until the Loan is repaid in full OR if the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant ceases.” • On the 1st of October *, the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant ceased and in accordance with the underside of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, on this same date the Employee Savings Plan Loan Account Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant also ceased to exist due to the Defendant omitting to include an essential term in the underside of the Agreement, which is that the Agreement would only remain in effect until the Loan is repaid in full AND/OR if the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant ceases. As a result of the unilateral mistake in the Agreement, it became voidable as of 1st of October *. • On the 23rd of August *, after the Plaintiff submitted a credit application for a pre-approved loan of CI$*,*.* at another Class A Bank, the Loan Officer assigned to his application forwarded the credit check inquiry correspondence between themselves and the Defendant, where the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had an active charge-off loan with the Collections Department and the pay-off amount is CI$*,*.*. This adverse information was then deemed to be unsatisfactory by the Class A Bank and ultimately led to Plaintiff’s pre-approved credit application being denied. • On the 27th of August *, the Plaintiff visited PROVEN Bank to obtain a statement of his account in order to review the transaction history and verify the cumulative total of the accrued interest and outstanding loan balance on the account over the *-year period, however, upon reviewing the statement of his account, the Plaintiff noticed that the outstanding and ending balance noted was only for CI$*,*.* and not CI$*,*.* as the Defendant had disclosed to the other Class A Bank on the 23rd of August.