The Government failed to consult with local couriers before setting up its own overseas online shopping and shipping channel, a court has been told.

Mailboxes United, a Bermudian courier company with warehouses in the United States, claimed that the Government should have approached island firms before it signed a deal with a foreign partner in Miami to set up a state-run import business backed by the Bermudian taxpayer.

The Government is now the part owner of MyBermudaPost, a shipping and online shopping company that delivers goods from overseas via the public-funded Bermuda Post Office.

In a request for a judicial review in which Mailboxes, which is owned by Kenny Thomson, is seeking to block the Government’s contract with MyUS — or at least have the terms of the contract exposed to public scrutiny — lawyer Peter Sanderson stressed that the Government had ignored essential criteria, such as obtaining quotes from at least three companies, before issuing the contract.

He added that other considerations — “inclusivity, transparency, and sustainability” — were also bypassed before the Government inked the deal with Miami-based courier MyUS.

Addressing Puisne Judge Larry Mussenden on Friday, Mr Sanderson said: “The procurement says that at least three quotes must be received by telephone or in writing and full details be taken on file of those quotes.

“If it’s impossible to obtain three quotes, efforts to obtain these quotes should be documented — document your efforts to at least try and get quotes.”

Mr Sanderson added that despite requests from his client, the Government had failed to provide details of its contract with the overseas courier or how it had been secured.

He also questioned why a $24,000 payment had been made by the Government, pointing out that the figure came just below the $25,000 figure in which contracts should be made public.

Mr Sanderson said: “In Bermuda, according to the procurement code, there’s no exception to these exemptions.

“The benefits of procurements go far beyond the purchase of goods and services. The laws promote inclusivity, transparency and sustainability of the Government’s procurement process. That’s what’s intended here and that’s how things are meant to go.

“With contracts such as this one, we’re not merely looking at Government getting good value for money, we’re looking at these other factors as well. We’re looking at inclusivity, transparency, sustainability.

“Do you go to overseas contractors or do you find out that there are local firms that can assist?”

For the Government, Eugene Johnston insisted that the administration’s contract with MyUS was a “partnership” rather than a procurement contract between two private entities — and was therefore not subject to public scrutiny.

He went on to argue that, even if the deal did come under procurement regulations, those regulations were null and void because the Government had failed to have them officially gazetted.

In a heavily technical monologue lasted several hours, Mr Johnston said: “This is not a challenge by Mailboxes to any decision of the director of project management and procurement.

“No challenge has been made to that department and how that department has exercised its public functions, what advice they have given, to whom and when.

“Secondly, there is no allegation or claim that the post office, or better, to speak more legally, the postmaster-general, had no power to enter into an agreement with Access USA of the rough type that we’re discussing here. So there’s no legality challenge.

“And third, it’s not a challenge against the signing of the agreement. The decision that is challenged is the decision to enter into a shopping platform partnership — in other words, the decision to set up this business relationship, or what’s called ‘the partnership’.

“If Mr Thomson is to repeat the word ‘procurement’ a hundred times, the Government and the court is supposed to assume a procurement situation as opposed to what their public announcement says and what themselves refer to as a partnership.”

In defence of Wayne Furbert, the Cabinet Office minister who unveiled the initiative outside the General Post Office to some criticism in 2021, Mr Johnston said: “Adverse inferences are made about facts, not law.

“The law is for your lordship to decide no matter what we put in affidavits and no matter what a minister says on the street side.”

Questioned by Judge Mussenden on an apparent $600,000 windfall pouring into government coffers as a result of the postal enterprise — a fact revealed in this year’s Budget book — Mr Johnston replied: “The minister made a gaffe.”

The judge replied: “Well, who says that, Mr Johnston? Who says the minister made a gaffe? You're interpreting when you’re not allowed to. You can’t say to the court that the minister made a gaffe when there’s no evidence he made a gaffe. It’s not for you to tell us … it’s not for you to give evidence.

“For you to call it a gaffe, in this court, is kind of interesting.“

Pressed by the judge as to why Mr Johnston had made the insult, the lawyer could only reply: “I’m not sure.”

“You could have been sure. You should have been sure. If it’s not relevant then don’t take it to me.

“The proper way to address it would be to have someone from the department to provide some evidence on it.”

“Yes, I get it. I get that,” Mr Johnston said.

Justice Mussenden reserved judgment.