Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert is being sued by a contractor who claims he failed to pay a bill of more than $100,000 for work done on his house.

However the United Bermuda Party politician told The Royal Gazette last night that the case, which is being brought by Floyd Forth, who owns F2 Property Management Group, was “crazy” and “frivolous”.

Mr. Forth filed a writ against Mr. Furbert in July and his claim is due to be heard in the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court later this month. He could not be contacted for comment yesterday.

Mr. Furbert told this newspaper he strenuously denied the allegation that he owed Mr. Forth money and said he had evidence to prove his case.

“All I can say is that they (the claims) are false,” he said. “They are to do with a contractual building thing and it’s a difference over what he says I owe him and some incorrect work that he did. This is a crazy, frivolous case. I don’t understand it.”

Mr. Furbert said he had proof of a number of payments he made to Mr. Forth which were not deducted from the total bill for the work done on his home on Brown Estates Road, Hamilton Parish, in 2005 and 2006.

“That’s the strange thing about it,” he said. “We have shown him payments we have made and he hasn’t deducted that from the bill. Even the payment that my lawyer sent him was not deducted.”

He added that he was not satisfied with some of the work done by Mr. Forth and claimed the construction boss actually owed him money.

Mr. Forth’s lawyer Paul Harshaw, of Lynda Milligan-Whyte & Associates, said: “Obviously Mr. Forth disagrees with Mr. Furbert on the merits of the case and that is why he has been forced to pursue his claim in the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court of Bermuda.

“If Mr. Furbert seriously thought that the case was without merit he has had since July, 2006 to apply to strike out the action.

“He has not done so. The true legal position will be determined by a Judge of the Supreme Court following trial.”

Edward Bailey, representing Mr. Furbert, said he could not comment.

“It wouldn’t be proper, under the barristers’ code of conduct, to even say anything about the matters. It would be sub judic>.”