to have him declared in contempt of court. Puisne Judge, the Hon. Mr. Justice Meerabux, in agreeing with the unrepresented man, stopped the case and ruled that the court file should be turned over to the Attorney General.

The ruling appeared to leave those who initiated the action stunned, while Mark Hardy, who defended himself, was seen to jump for joy outside the court room.

It was the latest twist in a complicated maze of legal manoeuvring surrounding Hardy and his failed Focus Group of insurance companies.

A motion was brought by liquidators, Mr. David Lines and Mr. Peter Mitchell, in an attempt to have Hardy declared in contempt of court for "scandalising the court'' in a letter campaign he waged against the former Chief Justice, Sir James Astwood. Sir James had previously rendered judgement against Hardy in related matters.

Lawyers for the liquidators are Mr. Saul Froomkin and Mr. Andrew Martin of Mello, Hollis, Jones and Martin.

After the surprise ruling was handed down, following a day and a half of submissions and legal arguments, Mr. Martin said: "We have fulfilled our duty to the court and to our client. The matter is now in the hands of the Attorney General, who will do what he considers to be in the public interest.'' The liquidators had argued that as officers of the court, they were obliged to bring the matter to the court's attention.

The letters, which Hardy admits he authored and disseminated to a number of recipients here and overseas, repeatedly disparaged the legal reputation of the former Chief Justice. But he said that he did not know that his actions could be classed as a criminal offence. He said that he did not accept that it had been contempt of court.

Hardy claimed that he would be disadvantaged, materially impaired and obstructed if the liquidators of Focus Insurance were allowed to continue the prosecution.

One of the reasons for that he said is that he had been granted leave by the Privy Council in London to appeal a related matter and a Court of Appeals case in London was still pending.

The charges he faced until today, the court heard, could be subject to a penalty of imprisonment.

Hardy further argued that Mr. Froomkin and Mr. Martin should not be allowed to accept instructions from the liquidators, because it was a case in which they had every reason to believe that they would likely be a witness in "the contested and controverted matter''.

He said that Mr. Froomkin had first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the manner and timing giving rise to the letters. He said it went to the issue of ethical conduct (see below).

Hardy suggested that thousands of dollars had to be run up on the estate of Focus Insurance in bringing the action to the court. He continued: "Focus must have brought this action to the commercial advantage of Focus, to have me adjudged in contempt of court, again. But they can't do that.'' An chartered accountant by training, who was struck off the register after being declared a bankrupt in England because of matters relating to this case, Hardy stated that the company would not be permitted by law to bring forth a criminal matter designed to obtain commercial advantage in relation to civil proceedings.

Hardy also questioned how Focus liquidators could spend money out of the Focus estate on behalf of Focus unless it was specifically for the furtherance of the company's position.

He said: "This should have been a matter for the Attorney General or the court to prosecute.'' Mr. Froomkin argued that there was no evidence of a real or perceived conflict of interest. He called Hardy's grounds for having the matter put off "frivolous and unfounded''.

He added: "We've spent a day and a half, with Mr. Hardy attacking everyone except himself. The case has lasted far too long, especially because he has admitted to the writing and sending of the letters.'' Mr. Justice Meerabux, however, stopped the case and agreed with Hardy, saying "potential conflicts are likely to arise in a micro-state like Bermuda. The matters before this court are very serious matters. They are quasi-criminal.'' He continued that Mr. Froomkin was linked to the case and to Focus Insurance company. He agreed with Hardy that the participants were "involved in hotly contested litigation in some other forum.'' That was a reference to the pending Privy Council case that will have the two lawyers and Hardy again arguing on opposite sides.

"Having examined all of the evidence and taken into consideration that justice is important in this matter it is the duty of this court to intervene and refer this matter to the attorney general's chambers to ascertain whether or not the Attorney General will prosecute this matter.'' Mark Hardy.