A former hospital worker has launched a legal action against the Bermuda Hospitals Board over his termination for fighting.

Ticoe Williams alleged that he suffered bullying and harassment at the quango, which was not properly dealt with.

He said also that, while he was dismissed after a fistfight with the employee whom he alleged had harassed him, the other employee kept his job.

He sought lost wages and other monetary relief through the Supreme Court, but the BHB asserted that Mr Williams initiated the fight, which led to his termination.

The BHB also sought to have the case struck out on the basis that the defendant did not adequately respond to requests for better particulars.

In a recent court judgment, acting Puisne Judge Cratonia Thompson found that the statement of claim put forward by Mr Williams did not sufficiently set out his case.

However, she said that striking out the claim altogether because of deficiencies of the writ should be a last resort if they could be cured by an amendment.

“It is noted, that while the plaintiff has not filed an amended writ, nor has the plaintiff sought leave to amend the writ, the plaintiff under cover of a letter dated September 26, 2023 provided to the defendant a proposed amended writ,” Mrs Justice Thompson wrote.

“The proposed amended writ set out changes to the statement of claim. It is clear from this, and also from the plaintiff’s submissions at the hearing of this application, that the plaintiff is willing to make any necessary amendments to the writ.”

In the circumstances, the judge found it was appropriate to give Mr Williams 21 days to make any necessary amendments to the writ.

In a statement of claim, dated February 3, 2023, Mr Williams said he suffered bullying and workplace harassment from another employee, but his complaints were “not addressed in a satisfactory manner”.

He said the situation culminated on January 5, 2019 with a fistfight breaking out. An investigation was launched and Mr Williams was dismissed.

Mr Williams alleged that, despite a “zero tolerance” policy for fighting in the workplace, his harasser was allowed to keep his job.

In February 2023, the BHB requested “further and better particulars” related to the allegations of workplace bullying, along with evidence of the “zero tolerance” policy.

A month later, the BHB made another request for further particulars, specifically related to what conduct had been brought to the body’s attention, who the complaints were made to and if an official complaint had been brought through the BHB’s Harassment, Bullying and Incivility policy.

Mr Williams responded to both requests in April 2023, but the BHB claimed the responses were defective and made another request.

While Mr Williams provided another response in June 2023, the BHB once again said that the response was insufficient, filing its defence to the allegations that September.

In the defence, the BHB denied the claims against it and alleged that Mr Williams started the fistfight and, because he had initiated and committed violence against a co-worker, he was fired in accordance with BHB workplace policies.

At a hearing in January, the court ordered Mr Williams’s counsel to provide further and better particulars and, while a reply was filed later that month, the BHB again found the claims insufficient and sought to have the case struck out.

The BHB argued that Mr Williams’s failure to provide better details of his allegations had left it unable to properly defend itself.

However, Bruce Swan, for Mr Williams, said that BHB had received responses to its requests and, where Mr Williams was unable to provide some information, such as specific dates and times of harassment, it was because he could not recall them.

Mrs Justice Thompson wrote: “I agree that the plaintiff’s responses to the defendant’s requests were lacking in some respects.

“For instance, the plaintiff has failed to set out any dates whatsoever, or even an approximate time period, on which the alleged incidents of bullying and harassment occurred.”

However, she said she did not accept that Mr Williams was in breach of the court order, stating that he had provided some of the further particulars sought and set out material facts that should have been included in the writ.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers