WHEN one black businessman was suddenly faced with losing his home after arranging a renegotiation package with the Bank of Bermuda, he felt he had only one option ¿ to defend his property in the courts.

But if the litigant thought that the wheels of justice run smoothly and on an even playing field, he was eventually to discover otherwise.

More than 16 years later the entrepreneur is still waging his legal battle against a financial powerhouse that rakes in millions of dollars of profit each week.

And documents, including private e-mails and court papers, suggest that the businessman's quest for justice was hindered by authorities set up to ensure that all are equal in the eyes of the law.

The businessman, who asked not to be named, alleged that various institutions continually showed preferential treatment to the bank and that when he took his complaint further, legal watchdogs did not take up his case.

Documents show that Court Registrar Charlene Scott continued to send court correspondence to the businessman's former attorney ¿ months after he had declared that he was representing himself in his case.

And documents also reveal that he was ordered to submit legal applications within strict deadlines ¿ even though those deadlines should have been relaxed because he was not a qualified lawyer.

Yesterday, the lawyer who claims the court system is rampant with prejudice said he was familiar with the case ¿ and could not understand the actions of some court administrators.

"I am aware of that and all I can say is that I don't understand why the Registrar would behave in that fashion," he said.

"If a litigant says to the court he is representing himself they must ensure that correspondence is sent to him, not his former attorney.

"Furthermore, because he isn't an attorney, time limits don't apply to ordinary members of the public. The courts have to be a lot more patient and yet that seems not to be being done in certain cases."

The Mid-Ocean News has seen other documents which show that court officials banned the businessman from inspecting his own case file, insisting that the documents could only be viewed by his attorney ¿ even though he was representing himself.

To back up his legal case against the bank, the businessman also filed a complaint with the Bermuda Monetary Authority in March 2003. More than ten months later, he finally received a response ¿ that the BMA had concluded its investigation but would not divulge its conclusions, even though he was the complainant.

The businessman took the matter further, launching a complaint against the BMA with the Ombudsman. Records show that the BMA, responding to the Ombudsman's inquiry, denied that it had ever held an investigation in the first place.

And documents also show that the businessman launched a third offensive against the bank ¿ by filing a criminal complaint against bank personnel with the Police Fraud Squad.

However, he received no feedback from detectives and the Mid-Ocean News understands that none of those named in the complaint were interviewed by detectives.

Yesterday, the lawyer who has condemned institutional racism within the island's legal framework said the case exemplified a pervasive mindset that was rooted in race.

"If there's a longstanding mindset that things are going to be done in an establishment kind of way, that's going to protect the establishment - institutions like the bank," he said.

"That's not necessarily direct racism, it's people with no courage to say that there's something wrong here. So they protect the establishment in a way in which, although there is not necessarily an edict that comes out and says 'this is how it must be done', that's the mindset.

"You favour the bank in a way which is not necessarily intended to undermine Mr. and Mrs. Poor Bermuda, but the fact is it does. And so we have people working in institutions who still behave in that way. If any of them attended some of the Big Conversations they would see that, while their actions are perhaps not motivated by malice, there is a bias to it.

When questioned about the incident last night, a spokeswoman for the BMA told the Mid-Ocean News: "It is not our policy to discuss publicly individual cases involving regulated entities.

"We do receive information from the public about financial institutions, and we may or may not undertake investigations depending on the nature of the information received.

"Where regulatory action is undertaken, we are precluded from commenting publicly about such action under statutory confidentiality provisions."