BERMUDA'S longest running discrimination case is set to go at least another round - despite a decision by the Human Rights Commission to close its file on the issue.

Businessman Harold Darrell - who claims he was discriminated against by the Bank of Bermuda and its Board of Directors - is now taking his case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the complaints process has been hijacked by Government officials.

And that view is shared by a former HRC officer who claims his superiors hampered his investigation of Mr. Darrel's complaint by barring him from attending a Board of Inquiry meeting held to look into the matter.

Mr. Darrell filed a complaint with the HRC in October 2000, alleging that the bank deliberately soured business deals he was negotiating by passing on confidential information to third parties.

But the case became bogged down in a quagmire of technical arguments over who the complaint was against - the bank as a corporate entity or the individual members of the bank's Board of Directors.

Mr. Darrell has always maintained that the bank was an affected party in his complaint, but that individual directors could ultimately be held responsible for any breach in the bank's regulations. However, a Board of Inqiry set up by then-Human Affairs Minister Randy Horton named the bank's CEO and Board of Directors - not the bank itself - as the respondents. The terms of reference set out by the the Board list "CEO, Board of Directors, Bank of Bermuda Limited" as the respondents to the complaint, which was later dismissed. Mr. Darrell has since battled to have the terms of reference amended to include the bank.

In August, almost seven years after the complaint was first filed, the Human Rights Commission finally reached a decision and concluded that it "considers the inquiry into this allegation of discrimination at an end" because the terms of reference could not be amended.

But Mr. Darrell pointed out the Commission's decision is based on judgements that were subsequently overturned. And he produced a December 2005 letter from the HRC to the Board of Inquiry which supported his argument that the bank was a respondent in the case.

He claimed the bank's lawyers argued before a Board of Inquiry hearing that the complaint was against individual directors - even though they had earlier argued successfully in Supreme Court that the case should be primarily against the bank and that directors were an effective party.

And he pointed out that one sitting member of the HRC - lawyer Venous Memari, represented the bank in its defence of Mr. Darrell's allegations.

In a letter to Mr. Darrell dated August 24, law firm Marshall, Diel and Myers, acting for the HRC, wrote: "The background to your complaint that you have set out in your letter is at odds with our client's [HRC] records and in particular the Supreme Court ruling of Mr. Justice Meerabux dated 27 June 2001. Your original compaint was not, as you state, against the Bank of Bermuda Limited but rather was against the Chief Executive Officer and the individual Directors of the Bank."

The letter goes on to quote a number of representations made by Mr. Darrell's lawyers in March, April and May 2001 in which it was stated that the complaint was against individual directors, rather than the bank.

The letter also quoted in part the June 27 2001 ruling of Justice Meerabux, in which he stated: "I rule that the bank is not a person directly affected ...and be not served. I rule that the individual directors are all persons directly affected by Mr. Darrell's complaint. I direct that they be served the summons."

The letter, written by lawyer Tim Marshall, added: "You are now requesting that our client redraft the Minister's Terms of Reference and that the matter be put before a new Tribunal. The Act does not give our client such amendment powers, nor in our opinion does the Act give the Minister such power. Our client is therefore not able to assist you further with this matter and considers the inquiry into this allegation of discrimination at an end."

However, the HRC decision appears to ignore a second ruling made by Justice Meerabux made in September 2001, overturning his June 27 ruling.

Court documents show that, on September 19, following a submission by bank lawyer Jeffrey Elkinson, Judge Meerabux ruled: "The uncontroverted evidence before the Court is that the Bank is a party affected. The issue is not about redefining the person against whom the complaint was made. I rule that I have jurisdiction on basis of principals of law.

"I rule that I can re-open the matter. The party affected I rule is the Bank and that an inaccurate statement was made before the Court on 27 June 2001.

"In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, I order that the matter be re-opened."

@BODY-10-TIMES-2:Continued on Page 2