won its battle to overturn a $100,000-a-day fine and order for its assets to be seized.

Legal costs, said to be over $100,000, were awarded to the union.

BIU president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons MP and lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP yesterday emerged triumphant from the Court of Appeal showdown.

Amid cheers from their followers, they immediately accused Government of mounting a politically-inspired "conspiracy'' to kill the union.

Said Mr. Simmons: "They set out to destroy and wreck 50 years of effort, sweat and tears.'' Mr. Hall exclaimed: "This was clearly a conspiracy to bring the union to its knees...We have won a very important victory for the people of Bermuda.'' He added a further action, claiming $100,000-plus compensation, could now be launched against Government and the Attorney General's chambers. "It is something we will have to consider,'' he said.

Yesterday's ruling tore up the July 1 order by Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood.

It was made after an application by the Government at the height of the recent nationwide unrest over the Bermuda Forwarders' dispute.

The Chief Justice directed the union's assets be seized and a $100,000-a-day fine imposed for an alleged breach of a Government-inspired injunction demanding an end to illegal striking.

He later made a stay of execution on the sequestration order, pending the appeal hearing.

During a two-day Court of Appeal hearing the BIU argued the penalties were slapped on during a private meeting between the Chief Justice and the Attorney General's chambers. The union were not present, and had not even been notified of the June 29 hearing, Mr. Hall said.

He claimed the Chief Justice had found the BIU guilty of contempt, and flouted the rules of the Supreme Court, natural justice and Bermuda's constitution.

In his submission, Mr. Philip Holder, from the Attorney General's chambers, said Government had won the interocutory -- or provisional -- injunction during a national crisis.

It had been essential to act swiftly -- and it was not necessary for the union to have been present.

Mr. Holder dismissed Mr. Hall's claims the Chief Justice had made a final ruling on July 1.

It had only been provisional, and the BIU had the chance later to counter it, he argued.

Mr. Holder also claimed the Government-BIU wrangle may continue to a full Supreme Court trial.

Government may wish to push for a final judgment over whether there had been illegal striking, he said.

The appeal panel had put off its decision until yesterday. Their reasons will be announced later.

At yesterday's brief hearing Mr. Mark Pettingill, for the Attorney General's chambers, argued costs should be evenly split.

He said Government had produced prima facie evidence of a breach of an injunction.

"It is pellucidly clear the union was at fault to some degree in relation to the breach,'' he said.

Mr. Hall said the BIU had been lumbered with huge expenses. And the sequestration order led to the union's pay cheques being "dishonoured'' by banks.

Afterwards, Mr. Hall was vitriolic in his attack on Government, and slammed the Chief Justice's July 1 order as a "travesty of justice''.

He said taxpayers would now have to pick up a "substantial six-figure'' bill in costs.

Mr. Simmons later said Government owed the public an apology.

He said talks would be held with Mr. Hall about a possible damages claim.

The Attorney General's chambers last night issued a brief statement, stressing the injunction still remained in force. "The Crown will now consider its options. A decision will be made in due course.''