The co-founder and former president of Lines Overseas Management will be able to keep recordings of his telephone conversations private, according to a judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

The written reasons behind the judgment of Justices Sir Murray Stuart Smith, Edward Zacca and Gerald Nazareth was not available at press time yesterday, however it appears that the bench accepted lawyer Timothy Marshall?s stance that all recordings, transcripts, summaries or excerpts of telephone conversations by Brian Lines should be protected from disclosure.

The ruling appeared to encompass all the tape recordings of conversations Mr. Lines held on his telephone extensions including those related to his trading of securities now under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Key to Mr. Marshall?s argument was the effect of Section 61 of the Telecommunications Act 1986.

Throughout the period relevant to the SEC subpoenas, LOM operated a system whereby it taped all telephone calls including those on the extensions of Brian and his brother Scott, who was LOM?s managing director.

However Mr. Marshall said recording phone conversations to resolve trading disputes at LOM had been Scott Lines? idea and while Brian Lines knew the company was recording calls made at the trading desk, he was not aware that calls were being recorded on his own lines.

Although his evidence ran contrary to an affidavit in which Scott Lines stated that while no consent had been given he and Brian Lines and other staff of LOM were aware that recordings were being made, Mr. Marshall argued that Brian Lines had the right to privacy under Section 61 of the Telecommunications Act. As such unauthorised recordings could not be presented to the SEC.

Mr. Marshall also argued that an injunction granted by the Supreme Court which prevented LOM from disclosing Brian Lines? personal or legally privileged telephone conversations or interviews with the Bermuda Monetary Authority to the SEC should be extended to include Brian Lines? conversations related to the three companies under SEC scrutiny.

He pointed to Scott Lines? affidavit which offered an overview on the transactions involving brother Brian and the three companies being scrutinised by the SEC.

Mr. Marshall said the affidavit made it plain that Brian Lines? communications were not for the benefit of LOM but rather for his own personal benefit.

As such, the injunction preventing anything of a personal nature from being released to the SEC should also cover the trading since it too was personal, he said.

It is unclear whether the Court of Appeals paid any heed to this line of argument since the bench noted that it had not been presented to the lower court.

The Court of Appeals also upheld the Supreme Courts ruling to protect recordings, transcripts, summaries or excerpts of interviews with Brian Lines that were conducted by a Bermuda Monetary Authority inspector conducting a parallel investigation into one of the securities being scrutinised by the SEC.

The Court of Appeals granted an injunction restraining LOM from disclosing the materials related to Brian Lines to the SEC. It also upheld that portion of the Supreme Court?s ruling which entitled LOM to disclose to the SEC documents containing confidential information of customers and clients and recordings or transcripts of conversations on the telephone extensions of Scott Lines ?provided they fall within the scope? of the SEC subpoenas that were served on Scott Lines almost two years ago when he visited the US.

A US Court has given Scott Lines until April 7 to testify to US Securities and Exchange Commission investigators in relation to the subpoenas. This newspaper understands that Mr. Lines, who successfully sought to have the location of his testimony resettled outside of the US, will likely meet with the SEC in Canada rather than Bermuda.