more than three years ago wound up in the Court of the Appeal yesterday.

Mr. Peter H. Darling of The Chimneys, Salt Kettle Lane, applied to the Development Applications Board back in 1989 to add on a bathroom and two walk-in closets, which would touch the wall dividing his property from Mr. and Mrs. Charles Green's.

The DAB had refused the application, but Mr. Darling appealed to the Environment Minister and won.

The Greens responded by appealing the Hon. Mrs. Ann Cartwright DeCouto's decision to the Supreme Court. They said she paid a site visit, informing Mr.

Darling -- who was present -- and not them.

Chief Justice the Hon. James Astwood decided in favour of the Greens, saying Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto did not appear to have been acting fairly -- although he found she had not committed any impropriety.

Sir James sent the matter back to the Minister for a rehearing and she again ruled in favour of Mr. Darling.

The Greens have now taken their case to the Court of Appeal, as has Mrs.

Cartwright DeCouto who does not agree with Sir James' decision she should have told the Greens she was paying a site visit.

In his opening arguments yesterday, Mr. Robin McMillan, for the Greens, said there was "a likelihood of bias'' when the Minister reheard the matter.

He said the Supreme Court had acted "unreasonably'' in sending the matter back to Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto.

He added the proposed addition would further reduce the privacy of the Greens.

"I submit the Supreme Court has the right to order no rehearing at all and simply let the DAB's decision stand because the Minister wrongly dealt with it,'' he said.

The three appeal judges asked if it would have been possible for the Minister to have appointed someone to hear the matter on her behalf.

Mr. McMillan said he believed it would have been, but feels there should not have been a rehearing at all.

However, Mr. Phillip Holder, for the Crown, said the Minister was "exclusively empowered'' to deal with the matter.

He argued she did not have to inform the Greens she was coming to see where Mr. Darling plans to build the bathroom because the purpose was merely to familiarise herself with the physical characteristics of the site and "not for hold a formal hearing''.

He added: "No risk of unfairness could result because both parties had had the opportunity to make representations to the Minister.'' Mr. Jeffrey Elkinson, for Mr. Darling, said his client had been waiting years to add on the bathroom "for which he has permission''. He said there was no where else on his property for it.

He further submitted Sir James should not have found there had been a breach of justice because there was no hearing at the site, therefore, the Greens did not miss a chance to give their side.

He said there were sworn affidavits that no discussion about the proposed addition took place between Mr. Darling and the Minister.

The Minister visited the site, not for evidence but to "clarify things in her own mind'', he said.

The Court of Appeal will announce its decision tomorrow afternoon.