The Bank of Bermuda yesterday claimed its aggrieved former customer Harold Darrell was continuing ?a cycle of broken promises? in mounting a media blitz last week declaring his intent to drop a November civil action against the bank.

In a statement sent to the bank said it had not received any legal notice since from Mr. Darrell, and questioned his sincerity. The civil action is due to begin on November 28.

Yesterday the bank said it will proceed with filing documents for the case by Monday?s deadline if it isn?t legally notified beforehand of the action?s dismissal.

Under legal protocol, the civil action can only be dismissed through the court, and the bank, as defendant, would be notified if that was scheduled to take place, senior legal counsel Sonia Salmon said.

?In light of this inaction by Mr. Darrell and his representatives, Bank of Bermuda continues to prepare for the November court date and we remain confident in the merits of our position in both the civil action,? as well as in a separate human rights complaint being heard by a Board of Inquiry, she said.

In the civil matter, Mr. Darrell claims to be the victim of an alleged confidentiality breach by a bank officer in the mid-1990s that caused him financial hardship because a cable television deal was scuppered.

Mr. Darrell?s spokesman, Corey Butterfield last Thursday told broadcast media and that not only did Mr. Darrell intend to drop the civil action, he also planned to, within a fortnight, pay off debts of up to $900,000, plus the bank?s legal fees for the civil action.

Last night, Mr. Butterfield denied the bank?s claim that there had been no action on Mr. Darrell?s part. He said four letters had been sent to the bank?s legal representative, Conyers Dill & Pearman, since October 3. The correspondence sought clarification on legal costs and the amount of the outstanding debt. He added that Peniston & Associates lawyer Anthony Cottle had, on October 3, by telephone, discussed plans for the October 6 television interview with bank lawyer Jeffrey Elkinson.

And he said the bank was also notified in writing of the total amount it should pay to cover Mr. Darrell?s legal costs related to an Appeal Court case heard in the summer. In that case, the Court ruled Mr. Darrell?s complaint that the bank?s directors were racially motivated in not responding to his confidentiality breach complaint should be heard by a Human Rights Board of Inquiry.

A three-person Human Rights Tribunal heard legal remarks and evidence from September 21 to 28, in that matter. The hearing is due to reconvene in May of next year. And Mr. Darrell said he was throwing out his civil action against the bank because he was satisfied the Tribunal could serve as a single avenue of justice.

Yesterday the bank said in order to ?facilitate? Mr. Darrell?s payment of the debt, which is several years in arrears, it last week submitted details of the amount outstanding, the interest that is accruing daily, and an estimate of legal costs to the law firm on record for the proceedings, Trott & Duncan.

However, Mr. Butterfield said Mr. Cottle, on instructions, notified Mr. Elkinson he was representing Mr. Darrell in negotiations. ?Talking to Trott & Duncan is a non-starter,? he said, adding the bank had been notified that correspondence to Trott & Duncan would not be responded to because of Mr. Cottle?s instructions.

Ms Salmon said as long as Trott & Duncan is the attorney on record for the case, the bank and its legal counsel are legally prevented from discussing the matter with another party.

The bank said it has also not been notified whether Mr. Darrell will be filing with the court by the Monday deadline. ?We are concerned about the waste of public and private resources if they fail to comply with the court order and then seek again to adjourn this matter.?