The parties in the Supreme Court civil case over a piece of land on Hinson Island will have to wait weeks to learn of an outcome.

Puisne Judge Richard Ground adjourned the Allan Edness versus the Bank of Bermuda lawsuit after listening to summations from both sides. No judgment date was fixed.

Mr. Edness, of Southampton, maintains that the Bank of Bermuda sold the Hinson Island property, he could no longer maintain, below market value.

He is suing the Bank of Bermuda for damages for breech of duty. He is also calling for an inquiry into the market value of the Hinson Island property and wants the court to order the bank to pay him the difference between the true market value, if it is found to be higher than the sale price, and the price the land was sold for.

Via a bank loan, Mr. Edness purchased tree-covered land, complete with a view of Hamilton and a private beach, from Jones Waddington in 1989 for around $360,000.

After clearing some of the trees from the land, Mr. Edness began building a three-bedroom house.

But five years after his purchase, Mr. Edness could not meet his obligations on the land. The bank sold the land for $295,000.

The two sides differ on what the property should have been sold for. The plaintiff presented appraisals around the $400,000 range with one witness testifying that he purchased his Hinson Island property which contained a derelict house in November 1995 for $500,000.

Bank's appraisers, which included Jones Waddington and Leonard Gibbons, said the property was worth around $295,000.

On Thursday, real estate appraiser Lawrence Sticca told the court that the $500,000 sale could not be considered when appraising the lot because the sale took place more than six months before the appraisal was made.

On Friday, during closing arguments, Bank of Bermuda lawyer Geoffrey Bell insisted that his clients discharged their duty for seeking a reasonable price for the land by getting the property appraised by reputable firms.

And to sell the land, he said the bank listed it with three reputable firms.

Mr. Bell also pointed out that there was a surplus from the land's sale, after the bank met its debt, which went to Mr. Edness.

He said that in the off-chance that the property was worth $400,000, it would be the error on the agent's part.

"The bank is not responsible for it.'' But Mr. Edness' lawyer, Victoria Pearman, insisted that the land could have sold at a higher price since "Mr. Edness' efforts added value to the property''.

And she dismissed the bank's appraisals, claiming that the employee at Jones Waddington who worked on the figures was "ill equipped'' to set the $295,000 price. "It is not good enough that Arthur Jones said he reviewed it,'' she said. "Especially if the research was flawed.'' And she said that Mr. Gibbons never visited the site when he was compiling his report.

"Mr. Gibbons said beauty was in the eye of the beholder, but Mr. Gibbons didn't behold the site.'' Noting the fact that the land sold in two months, Ms Pearman added: "The price it was listed at was a bargain.''