Businessman Harold Darrell has vowed to continue his human rights battle against the Bank of Bermuda, despite the Chief Justice rejecting his latest bid to get the case reopened.

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 last week that while there were "merits" to his application to continue legal action against the bank, he filed it too late in the eyes of the law.

Speaking out on Mr. Darrell's behalf last night, one of his lawyers Larry Scott said: "Our client will appeal the most recent decision of the court. He and we believe that he has a good cause of action that ought not to be defeated by procedural faults."

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 over who the complaint was against the bank as a corporate entity or the individual members of its board of directors.

That caused a delay which meant 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 appealed the board's decision in Supreme Court in 2008, but the appeal was rejected by Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller who said it should have been filed within 28 days of the ruling.

Last December, Mr. Darrell applied to Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves for a judicial review of his case. Mr. Justice Greaves refused the application, saying he'd taken too long to file it as it should have been made within six months of the board's decision.

Mr. Darrell launched a renewed application for a judicial review in June, again saying he wished to challenge the decision of the board of inquiry.

However, Chief Justice Richard Ground upheld Mr. Justice Greaves' decision in a ruling last Tuesday, July 13, agreeing that the challenge was launched too late and should have been made within six months

In a written ruling, Mr. Justice Ground said there were "merits" to Mr. Darrell's application.

"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," he wrote.

The Chief Justice noted Mr. Darrell's Queen's Counsel, Michael Beloff, argued that public policy is in favour of ensuring allegations of racism against such a prominent institution are fully investigated and aired.

He said: "Normally I would agree. But the allegations relate back to events which happened, at the latest, 13 years ago in 1997."

Quoting a Latin saying, which translates as "times change, and we change with them," he went on to conclude: "The Bank has changed ownership since then, having been acquired by HSBC in 2004. It has a different CEO. The board of inquiry dismissed the complaint nearly four years ago.

"In those circumstances I do not think that the public interest in having the applicant's complaints against the bank investigated is now so strong as to override his non-compliance with the time limits."

However, lawyer Mr. Scott said he felt that the actions in the case "must be aired and remedied," adding: "We will press on despite the current rulings by the courts thus far."