A consultant suing the Corporation of Hamilton for breach of contract claims he has never been so badly treated in his 30-year career.

Accountant Mike Hardy was hired to find cheaper deals for the City after negotiating an agreement with his friend Mayor Sutherland Madeiros.

But he is now seeking up to $100,000 from the municipality after elected members declared the contract not valid because they had not approved it.

Mr. Madeiros agreed the deal with Mr. Hardy's firm Noa Ltd. in a bid to save the municipality money — but the plan came under criticism from the other elected members, according to documents leaked to this newspaper.

Mr. Hardy — who was asked to find cheaper deals for the City from various vendors in return for a 50 percent cut of the savings — issued a Supreme Court writ against the Corporation last November and now expects the case to go to a civil trial.

He told The Royal Gazette: "I think it is totally ridiculous, what they have done. I have spent 30-odd years as an accountant, auditor and manager of insurance companies and I have never been treated like this by anybody. I have never had to go to court to get fees from anybody."

Mr. Madeiros said: "If it's going to go to court I can't say anything, but I will after."

Lawyers for the two sides have been trying to negotiate a settlement but Mr. Hardy said the Corporation had now gone silent. He said he negotiated substantial savings on health insurance for the City for which he is owed about $59,000. Add to that money for other work and his legal fees and the Corporation could be facing a $100,000 bill.

Angry Corporation members wanted to sue Mr. Madeiros for the final cost but were advised by the Corporation's lawyers that they had no legal recourse against the Mayor. Mr. Madeiros told a January 8 meeting at City Hall that he took "full responsibility for the Michael Hardy case", according to minutes leaked by former Common Councillor Graeme Outerbridge.

Alderman David Dunkley suggested at the same meeting that the Mayor should therefore pay the settlement to Mr. Hardy.

The matter was still unresolved on May 13, according to an e-mail from common councillor Pamela Ferreira — now an Alderman — to all members saying the Corporation's lawyers were not comfortable writing a letter to the Mayor on their behalf asking him to pay up.

She wrote: "The members wanted the letter to state clearly that they believed that the Mayor should be held accountable for all legal fees incurred in fighting this case because the Mayor acted ultra vires (beyond his powers)."

Lawyer Kiernan Bell told the members the Mayor was not likely to dispute that he acted in excess of his statutory powers, but said there was no evidence of "any self interest, self dealing, or secret profit accruing" to him from the contract.

She advised that any legal action against Mr. Madeiros would be "ill advised and ill fated", likely to be thrown out of court and would attract unwanted and negative media attention.

Mr. Outerbridge said members eventually wrote to Mr. Madeiros themselves reminding him that the contract with Noa was entered into without a resolution from the board or the support of two aldermen.

They asked him to pay all the legal fees and other costs relating to Noa and warned him that if he did not, they would have no choice but to inform voters that he had acted ultra vires. Mr. Outerbridge alleged the Mayor did not have the power to negotiate the settlement without members' approval and that he should not have taken "unilateral decisions" on spending.

"This is where things have been unravelling a bit through unauthorised spending," he added. "We put a stop to it. We were legally obligated to something that we had no part in."

Mr. Hardy said Corporation Treasurer Geoff Bell agreed to the contract after it was suggested by the Mayor.

"How many other contracts does the treasurer enter into in a year?" he said. "I'm sure he doesn't take every one to the (finance) committee and get them to sign it. They (the members) are trying to micromanage without any powers."