A Supreme Court Judge has dismissed an effort by Harold Darrell to have racial discrimination allegations returned to the courts, saying he had “a hopeless case”.

While the Human Rights Board dismissed a claim by Mr Darrell against the directors of the Bank of Bermuda, he recently sought a declaration from the courts that the decision was not a proper determination.

Puisne Judge Steven Hellman however dismissed the application and ordered the originating summons struck out, following an application by the Human Rights Board.

In a written judgement dated October 17, Mr Justice Hellman said the endorsement of claim was vexatious and an abuse of power, but added that he had every sympathy for the impetus behind the effort.

“The 1981 Act was intended to provide a relatively informal mechanism for resolving complaints by members of the public that their human rights have been breached,” he wrote.

“[Mr Darrell] alleged that he had been indirectly discriminated against by the Bank, but the Board never got to decide whether that allegation was true. This was because of the terms on which the complaint was referred to the Board.

“Whether or not the allegation was true, Mr Darrell might justifiably feel that the statutory mechanism has let him down.”

Mr Darrell, a Bermudian businessman, said staff at the Bank of Bermuda leaked confidential information to a third party in 1996, costing him a $3.2 million business deal. He complained to the bank, but alleged they failed to properly deal with his complaint because of institutional racism.

He lodged a complaint against the bank’s CEO and board of directors with the Human Rights Commission in October 2000. The board was convened in 2005, but they dismissed the complaint in 2006.

A written decision, released in 2007, explained that the preponderance of submissions related to institutional racism at the bank, but the bank itself was not a party to proceedings. The board found they did not have the power to add the bank as a party, and therefore could not make a ruling against them.

Mr Darrell unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the matter in 2008 due to his application coming in after the 28-day statutory period.

The matter returned to the courts in 2010, when Mr Darrell sought judicial review on the grounds that the chairman of the Human Rights Board was biased. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons dismissed that case in 2012, saying there was no real appearance of bias on the part of the chairman or the board.

Mr Darrell filed a new writ this April, stating that the Human Rights Board failed to make any determination as to whether the directors of the Bank of Bermuda breached the Human Rights Act 1981, and therefore the board remains alive but dormant.

During the in-chambers hearing, lawyer Jaymo Durham, representing Mr Darrell, argued that the written decision of the Human Rights Board had intentionally not expressed any findings, as it would have implicated the bank, which was not a party to proceedings and would have been unable to defend itself.

He urged Mr Justice Hellman to direct the board to reconvene and reconsider its decision that it had no jurisdiction to join the bank as a party to the complaint.

Lawyer Jai Pachai, representing the Human Rights Board, however said a written ruling released by the tribunal had dismissed the case against the defendants because it was not satisfied the complainant had proven its case.

And he added that Justice Norma Wade-Miller had found, when considering Mr Darrells quest for an appeal, that the board had made a final decision.

In his judgement, Mr Justice Hellman said of Mr Darrell’s claim: “Taking contextual material into account I find that it is vexatious and an abuse of process in that it has no realistic prospect of success on the merits. In short, I find that Mr Darrell has a hopeless case.”