A New York chef, who is fighting a Government decision to revoke his work permit, will have his case sent to Labour and Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton for re-consideration.

Mr. Horton will make the final decision about whether Ian Friedman will be able to stay on the Island as a guest worker.

Yesterday, Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley delivered his decision in the Supreme Court sending the case back to the Minister of Labour and Home Affairs for consideration.

Mr. Friedman came to the Island four years ago to work at the East Meets West Bistro. His wife works at a leading insurance company and his daughter is at school on the Island.

Mr. Friedman was the head chef at the bistro owned by businesswoman Sharmila Gonzalves. But a year later, he was convicted by Magistrate Edward King in June, 2002, for using offensive language in a public place in a dispute between business partners and was fined $900 for the offence.

When it came time to have his permit renewed, Mr. Friedman was denied permission and notified by the Department of Immigration to leave Bermuda by July, 2003.

Mr. Friedman, a graduate of one of the world?s top cooking schools, New York?s Culinary Institute of America, maintains that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice and is represented by lawyer Michael Smith.

Under principles of natural justice law, a person is entitled to a fair hearing and full knowledge of the allegations made against him.

Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne represented then Minister of Immigration Terry Lister, who revoked Mr. Friedman?s work permit.

In his decision, Mr. Justice Kawaley agreed that the principles of natural justice apply to the case.

But he said natural justice is not always about the facts or substance of fairness, it also has something to do with the appearance of fairness.

Mr. Justice Kawaley said Mr. Friedman was aware that complaints had been made about him to the Immigration Department and probably aware that letters had been written about him.

However, he said: ?In my view, the only proper finding which is open for me to make is that the Minister failed to fully notify the Plaintiff on the grounds of the proposed revocation.

?The evidence makes it inarguably clear that the Decision was in fact influenced by pre-conviction complaints to a material extent.

?It is irrelevant, in this crucial context, that the Plaintiff may have been aware of the information supporting similar behaviour in the past which the Minister in fact used as a partial basis for the Decision.?

Mr. Friedman claims he was not given adequate opportunity to make representations to the Minister as to why his work permit should not be revoked in partial reliance on certain complaints filed with the Ministry.

?A letter inviting him to make representations suggested that the only ground for the proposed revocation was the conviction in Magistrates? Court for using offensive words,? said Mr. Justice Kawaley.

Under the law, the Minister of Immigration was required to send a notification in writing to Mr. Friedman informing him of the grounds on which the revocation was proposed.

The March, 2003, letter was the notification.

Mr. Justice Kawaley questioned if the letter informed the plaintiff that his work permit was due to be revoked on the grounds of the conviction, ?together with a history of similar behaviour, in the words of the affidavit (sent from Chief Immigration Officer Dr. Martin Brewer)??

In his statement, Mr. Justice Kawaley also said Mr. Friedman was not afforded an adequate opportunity to make representations on these other matters at the time when the decision was being made.

This means that Mr. Friedman did not have full knowledge of the extent of the complaints against him, and had a right to appeal them through proper legal representation.

Last week, the court heard that employees of the bistro who worked with Mr. Friedman, submitted letters to the Department of Immigration explaining why he should no longer be allowed to work on the Island. Guest workers do not have full access to these files or letters under current Government regulations.

Mr. Bourne told the court that the Minister had acted fairly within his discretion and exercised his powers to revoke Mr. Friedman?s work permit, based on the fact Mr. Friedman did have a criminal record.

Yesterday, Mr. Bourne said the Minister will have to look at Mr. Friedman?s application for a work permit again under the Immigration Act.

He said the court?s decision can be appealed but the matter would have to be discussed with the Minister.

One of Mr. Friedman?s former colleagues alleged that their employer coerced them into writing a letter of complaint against Mr. Friedman.