The Supreme Court has struck out a legal action against the Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority that accused an official of bribery.

Gloyd Robinson had accused the BCAA of “vicariously or otherwise” accepting a bribe that provided an advantage to a competing business, Coral Jet.

In a recent ruling, the court found that he had no personal cause of action and the proceedings were an abuse of process.

Chief Justice Narinder Hargun said in a written judgment that the alleged misconduct by an employee should have been addressed through a judicial review.

The court heard that Mr Robinson had served as the founder and chief executive of Jet Test International Ltd, an aircraft ferry business.

While the company was licensed by the BCAA, the body heard allegations in 2021 that a minority shareholder, Steven Giordano, had falsified a BCAA-derived pilot licence validation for an independent contractor at JTIL, Christopher Heber.

As a result of the allegations, the BCAA suspended the privileges of Mr Giordano and Mr Heber pending a full investigation.

In December that year, Mr Robinson reached out to the BCAA, stating that he was no longer working with Mr Giordano or Mr Heber and asked about options for starting a new approval process.

In a letter dated December 20, 2021, Mr Robinson wrote that he had a new US entity with the same name and sought to continue operations with the same logo and brand.

Shortly afterwards, Tariq Lynch-Wade was appointed BCAA director of operations.

Mr Lynch-Wade told Mr Robinson that it would be inappropriate for JTIL or Mr Robinson to engage in further business with the BCAA while “under investigation”.

However, an Air Operators Certificate was granted for Coral Jet, which included Mr Giordano as a co-owner and Mr Heber as the organiser of the application.

Mr Robinson complained that while he was prohibited from engaging in business with the BCAA, Mr Giordano and Mr Heber were allowed to continue to do so despite the allegations against them.

He called on the court to make a declaration that the BCAA, vicariously or otherwise, was offered and accepted a bribe to provide an advantage to his competitors, which caused him damages.

While Mr Robinson alleged that Mr Lynch-Wade “accepted an offer of a promise and/or financial advantage”, his statement of claims did not specify the nature of the promise or financial advantage.

The BCAA called for the case to be struck out on the basis that he did not have standing to bring the claim and the arguments were doomed to fail.

It also argued that the case was an abuse of process as the allegations should have been dealt with through a judicial review.

In a letter dated August 2 this year, Thomas Dunstan, the director-general of the BCAA, said that police had completed the investigation into the allegations and he would be prepared to personally consider an application by Mr Robinson.

However, he noted that allegations had been raised that could be “problematic”.

He said the BCAA had concerns that Mr Robinson had “attempted or acted as a flight crew while intoxicated” and that he had filed a pilot flight proficiency completion record checked by “Michael Balzary”, who was described as an individual “whose identity is suspect”.

Mr Justice Hargun found that Mr Robinson was not able to launch an action to recover perceived losses to JTIL as the company itself, or the new US entity launched by Mr Robinson, would have to be the plaintiff.

“It is well established under Bermuda law a shareholder cannot bring a claim to make good the diminution in the value of its shareholding, or in its dividends, which flows from the loss suffered by the company for the recovery of which it has a cause of action, even if the company fails to pursue that claim,” the Chief Justice wrote.

“It follows that, to the extent that the claim is based upon the suspension of the approval granted to JTIL, the resulting loss is suffered by JTIL.

“It further follows that the only entity which can seek to recover that loss is JTIL itself and not Mr Robinson in his capacity as a minority shareholder and founder of the company.”

He also found that the Bribery Act did not open the door to a cause of action for Mr Robinson personally.

Mr Justice Hargun added that the appropriate manner to deal with the misconduct alleged by Mr Robinson would have been a judicial review, and as a result his statement of claims must be struck out.

• 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