Hospital bosses are refusing to say how much their failed bid to stop the Coroner holding an inquest into a patient’s death will cost the public purse.

Hubert (Hubie) Brown, who ran Hubie’s Bar on Angle Street, died aged 66 in December, 2002 at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital, after being given a transfusion of the wrong blood type.

Senior Coroner Archibald Warner ordered an inquest into his death to be held last November — after a protracted police inquiry — but Bermuda Hospitals Board questioned the legal basis for the hearing just a week before it was due to be held.

The board subsequently applied for a judicial review of Mr Warner’s decision to hold the inquest, which it lost in the Supreme Court last week.

Mr Warner told this newspaper yesterday that he’d instructed counsel in the Attorney General’s Chambers to seek costs, pointing out that Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman invited either party to address him on the issue within seven days, “otherwise costs will follow the event and the BHB, as the unsuccessful party, will pay the respondent’s costs on a standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed”.

BHB receives more than $140 million from the public purse each year and The Royal Gazette asked it to disclose how much bringing the case had cost so far — and what the final bill was likely to be.

A spokeswoman replied: “BHB is funded through private and government insurance schemes as well as by individuals.

“It is required to defend itself where the evidence indicates no liability, or to question the legal framework it works within, where appropriate.

“There is a governance process in place with regards to litigation.

“The decision to instigate or defend a case, or appeal, or to agree compensation, is reviewed and approved by the board, which reports through to the Minister of Health, Seniors and Environment.

“BHB does not usually provide detailed costs of individual court cases; there is a mandated process for financial reporting, that is set out in the Bermuda Hospitals Board Act 1970 and subsequent revisions.”

In response to further questions about what warranted the court case and the hourly rate of BHB’s lawyer Allan Doughty, senior litigation counsel at Isis Law, last night, a BHB spokesperson said: “BHB only recently became aware of the specific wording in the Act, so this is the first case we have been able to query the Act.

“As the Coroner is governed by the Coroner’s Act, our only recourse for questioning the Act was through the Courts.”

Mr Doughty argued during the Supreme Court proceedings that the Coroner could only hold inquests in certain specific cases set out in the Coroner’s Act 1938; those being where a person dies in a prison, a senior training school, a mental hospital, in police custody or as a result of an injury caused by a police officer.

He submitted that as there was no express requirement that the Coroner should hold an inquest in any other circumstances, Mr Warner had no jurisdiction to do so.

Mr Justice Hellman dismissed that claim, finding that the Coroner has the discretion to hold inquests in other circumstances.

He said: “It has long been recognised that there is a public interest in the Coroner holding an inquest where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a person has died a violent or unnatural death or a death of which the cause is unknown.

“These are matters which are rightly of concern to the community and an inquest gives them the opportunity to understand what has happened and why.”

As previously reported by this newspaper, Mr Warner has held just a handful of inquests into sudden deaths in recent years.

In 2009, he ordered one into the death of Norman Palmer at KEMH. BHB took part in those proceedings, again represented by Mr Doughty.

Asked to comment on Mr Justice Hellman’s judgement, Mr Warner said: “The Supreme Court handed down its ruling in ‘BHB V Senior Coroner’.

“The court ruled that the Coroner did have jurisdiction and a discretion to order an inquest into unnatural deaths other than those specifically provided for in the Coroner’s Act. I have instructed that application for costs be made.”

The Senior Coroner said he was “not prepared to comment on the merits of BHB bringing the suit or any out of court costs to the BHB or the taxpayers. That is their business.”

He added: “The inquest re: Hubert Brown will be heard in due course.”

Mr Brown’s brother-in-law Danis Moore told this newspaper last year that the family wanted an inquest and that BHB’s legal challenge left an”uncomfortable feeling”.