Businessman Harold Darrell got the green light to continue his long-running human rights battle against the Bank of Bermuda yesterday, when the Court of Appeal gave him permission for a judicial review.

Mr. Darrell believes he's been the victim of a conspiracy between Government, civil servants and the bank to have his complaints of institutional racism derailed.

Chief Justice Richard Ground ruled in July that while there were "merits" to his application to continue legal action against the bank via a judicial review, he filed it too late in the eyes of the law.

Appealing that decision at the Court of Appeal yesterday, Mr. Darrell's lawyer Michael Beloff QC successfully argued there should be a judicial review, despite the delay.

"We say a grave injustice would result if refused on the grounds of delay," said Mr. Beloff.

Mr. Darrell's first formal complaint was made to the bank in 1997. He alleged that in February 1996, it scuppered business deals worth a potential $3.2 million he was negotiating for his communications company, by improperly disclosing his confidential business and banking information to third parties.

Mr. Darrell, who is black, further alleged that the bank failed to properly address his claims due to his race and the Bank's institutional racism.

He continued to make complaints over the following years. However, he claimed the bank failed to investigate those properly, then eventually came to the conclusion he had been wronged by two members of senior management, only to ignore that finding.

Mr. Darrell filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in October 2000, alleging racial discrimination against the CEO and directors of the bank.

The case became embroiled in technical legal arguments and it was not until 2005 that a board of inquiry set up by then-Human Affairs Minister Randy Horton began to look into the issue.

The board ruled in October 2006 that Mr. Darrell's complaint failed because he made it against the CEO of the bank and the board of directors as individuals, when it should have been made against the bank itself.

The ruling went against the Human Rights Commission's recommendation and Mr. Darrell's wishes.

He tried to appeal the board's decision via a Supreme Court appeal and then via a judicial review, but various judges ruled against him, saying he'd taken too long to file his applications.

The most recent decision against him was made by Chief Justice Richard Ground in July, who said: "There are arguments both ways, but the result is that I am not persuaded that the merits are so strong in the applicant's favour that they should override the time limits."

The Chief Justice noted Mr. Beloff's point that public policy is in favour of ensuring allegations of racism against such a prominent institution are fully investigated and aired. However, he said time has passed and the bank has undergone a change of ownership and management since the allegations.

However, Mr. Beloff said yesterday that the case still deserves a fresh inquiry as it is in the public interest to get to the bottom of the matter.

Ruling in favour of Mr. Darrell being allowed a judicial review, President of the Court of Appeal Edmund Zacca said: "We are concerned that he [the Chief Justice] did not refer in his judgement to a fact which, in our opinion, is of substantial, if not overriding concern, that there's a public interest in having an allegation of this sort fully investigated by the court."

Mr. Darrell declined to comment afterwards, but Mr. Beloff said: "We're pleased. We had a fair hearing and a pleasant result."