Tv Credit Rush Cost Senior Pictet Staffer Her Job


Tribune Business Editor


The rush to obtain credit from Master Technicians to purchase a TV ended up costing a senior Pictet Bank & Trust employee with 24 years’ service her job, the Court of Appeal yesterday dismissing her $153,410 wrongful dismissal claim.

In upholding the earlier verdict of Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett, Appeal court president Anita Allen found that although Anya Dorsett’s actions were not “dishonest”, dismissal was “within the range of options open” to her employer.

Noting that Ms Dorsett held the “fairly senior” post of deputy vice-president at Pictet, having worked for the bank for 24 years, the Court of Appeal judgment said dismissal stemmed from her desire in December 2009 “to purchase a television set through a financing arrangement with Master Technicians”.

“In order to finalise the arrangement, she needed a letter confirming her employment,” the judgment added.

“Due to the fact that this was near Christmas time, that the bank was having a party on the day, and that her supervisor, Marilyn Cambridge, was hosting the party and was absent from work, [Ms Dorsett] took it upon herself to retrieve a form letter from the computer, place the Bank’s stamp on it, and dispatch the letter to Master Technicians.”

The Court of Appeal added that evidence presented during the Supreme Court case “showed that there were other persons at the office that day who could have signed the letter”, but Ms Dorsett did not ask for their help with it.

“Moreover, the appellant, although she saw Mrs Cambridge later that day, failed to mention to her what she had done,” the judgment added.

“Indeed, the appellant failed to mention it for some days thereafter, and it was only when Master Technicians called to confirm the authenticity of the letter, was [Pictet] made aware.

“As it turned out, the letter was not printed on [Pictet’s] letterhead, it was not signed, and noted the appellant’s salary to be lower than it actually was.”

Ms Dorsett’s explanation was “that she needed the letter urgently. She further explained that the issue of a job letter by the bank was routine and, indeed, such a letter had been issued on her behalf on other occasions.

“As a result of her conduct, the appellant was asked to resign. When she refused, she was summarily dismissed.”

Ms Dorsett’s attorney, Rawson McDonald, argued that Sir Michael’s decision was not supported by the case facts.

But Pictet’s attorney, Sean Moree, argued that the real issue was whether the bank could justify her dismissal, adding that the problem was not the letter but the fact it was “sent without” his client’s authority “with intent to deceive”.

Ultimately, the one area where the Court of Appeal disagreed with Sir Michael Barnett was in his finding that Ms Dorsett acted dishonestly.

“Clearly, on the evidence, the Appellant sent out the letter without authority,” President Allen found.

“However, there was nothing in the letter which was untrue, apart from the representation of her salary as being lower than it actually was, and that can hardly be something which would be of any benefit to her in obtaining credit.

“In the premises, there was, in my view, no representation in the letter from which one might infer that she intended to deceive anyone, and I would not characterise her conduct as dishonest.”

The Court of Appeal president, though, said the question of whether Ms Dorsett’s conduct had undermined “the trust and confidence” essential to her relationship with Pictet had to be set against the nature of the bank’s business and her senior position.

She noted that Pictet “requires its employees to be trust-worthy, and to conduct the business of the bank in a careful and prudent manner. One would not expect an employee of a bank to send out any letter without authority, much less an employee of her seniority.

“On the other hand, this was an isolated incident in 24 years of service, and the question was, is it reasonable to dismiss her for that one act?”

These issues, the Court of Appeal found, were to be left to the employer’s discretion, and dismissal was among the options “open to a reasonable employer in the circumstances”.

As a result, the Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme Court verdict that Ms Dorsett was not wrongfully dismissed.


positiveinput 7 years, 8 months ago

Lesson learnt for next time, wouldn't one say.


Shirley 7 years, 8 months ago

Her actions demonstrated very poor judgment - especially for someone so senior. Most unfortunate.


lakerfan242 7 years, 8 months ago

She is not a very smart woman I'd say. First of all for doing what she did what regards to the letter, and second of all by having the audacity to sue the company after they fired her for doing it. I'd imagine that this woman was making at least 70K per year, why wouldn't she be able to buy a TV outright in cash. No doubt she sexed and talked her way into that job and is really absent of any academic ability or work compotency. However ethics is lacking in the Bahamas in a big way, so perhaps she was just following suit.


positiveinput 7 years, 8 months ago

She may have had the money to purchase the item in cash, but considering the cost of it, it does make sense to me to purchase the goods on credit. This way with the amount you're assuming she makes, just from her savings interest from banking her money, she could have paid her monthly payments for the TV making her in some way, got it for free. However she learnt a valuable lesson not following procedures. Using a lower income amount assured her that she would have been able to handle more deductions if necessary in the future when she would have posted her actual amount.


stonewalljack 6 years, 9 months ago

I think the lady had taken lessons from her employer --- the Pictet & Cie. Bank.

Update ---- June 24th 2013.

Pictet & Cie Bank List of Crimes. 1996 --- F.S.A. --- Breach in London. 2003 --- F.S.A. --- States Rogues were operating in Pictet’s London offices. Ivan Pictet states that documents were forgeries but were later proved to be genuine in the British Courts. ( Ivan Pictet a proven liar.). He had documents destroyed in their London office – hoping to hide the crimes. 2007 --- The Securities&Exchange Surveillance ( Japan.) Issued a recommendation that the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of the F.S.A. to take disciplinary action against Pictet Asset Management – Japan Ltd. 2008 --- Dec. --- Pictet Bank state – “ We have never chosen any funds linked to MADOFF. 2011 – Madoff Trustees sue Pictet & Cie. Bank . for $156,000,000. ( They lied again.) 2011 --- Pictet & Cie bank abetted a Bribery Scheme. --- Oil Company sues Pictet Bank for --- $350,000,000. 2012 --- April.—Pictet & Cie, Bank .Geneva implicated in offshore Tax Scheme. –USA . 2012 -- June. --- Published in Anglo INFO. Geneva, ---- USA Trust Fund were sent false and fraudulent documents by Pictet Bank in order to collect large fees. (Like MADOFF). – Even after the SEC in the USA had uncovered the fraud Pictet Bank continued to charge fees and drain whatever was left in these accounts. Estimated that - $90,000,000 was lost in this Pictet Ponzi Scheme. 2012 -- July --- German paper –De – Spiegel --- states --- Pictet Bank uses a letterbox company in Panama and a tax loophole involving investments in London to lure/gain German Millionaires as clients. 2012 --- August. --- German Oppositon Leader accuses Swiss Banks of “ organised crime”. 2013 --- Swiss M.P.’s table motion to freeze Tiab Mahmuds assets of “ criminal origins” held in Swiss banks -- $18,000,000 held in five accounts at Pictet & Cie Bank . Bahamas. 2013 --- Feb. -- The bank is now seeking to re-structure --- to cut the partners liability ( not to risk their ill gotten personal wealth.) --- hoping to offload the decades of criminal responsibility. ( Some listed above.) The Germans are right – the bankers should go to prison if found guilty of financial crimes. ( Madoff got 150 years in prison --- surely the Pictet Bank’s partners should go to jail.) Ironically the Pictet & Cie .Bank partners are bigger criminals than the criminals who have accounts in their bank. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pictet & Cie Bank.--- Partners ----- ( 1996—2013)—Guilty. Peters & Peters --- Partners ------ (1996 --- 2013) ---Guilty.


Andrei 5 years, 5 months ago

I think that her actions demonstrated poor judgement and a little bit of instability. Maybe she has learned the lesson. http://dorianbarbu.wix.com/doctororto...">Andrew


Daniela 5 years, 5 months ago

Hmm...I http://cosuricadoupaste.tumblr.com/">agree with the Court of Appeal upheld. I also think that Ms Dorsett was not wrongfully dismissed on the contrary it was a right decision.


Sign in to comment