A lawyer for the Bank of Bermuda has urged the Chief Justice to enforce an out-of-court settlement on a businessman, ending a 12-year dispute.

Lawyers yesterday presented their closing arguments in the case of the financial institution versus Dilton Robinson.

The bank issued a court summons to impose a Deed of Settlement and Release on Mr. Robinson and his wife, Sharon, claiming the couple had agreed a settlement on November 14, 2008.

Mr. Robinson however, says he and his wife did not agree with the terms. He says they never gave authority to his then lawyers, Tony Bueno QC and Tony Cottle, to accept the offer.

The businessman says he was never in "direct contact" with senior counsel Mr. Bueno and that the UK barrister never became fully aware of the extent of his financial losses.

As a result he says the settlement offer fell short of the true value of his lost shares and properties.

Mr. Robinson's lawyer Rick Woolridge Jr. yesterday described the settlement as "miniscule" compared to his losses.

He also claimed Mrs. Robinson did not have "individually independent legal advice" a condition in Clause Six of the settlement.

"On the face of it, the whole entire agreement ought to fall away," he said.

"There was no real effectual or meaningful settlement, no lawful representation, because the junior counsel (Mr. Cottle) had a work permit in opposition to Bar Council guidelines, and there was no communication between the Queen's Counsel (Mr. Bueno) and his client.

"He had a real non-appreciation of Mr. Robinson's losses, by the size of the compromise settlement.

"Ought Mr. Robinson be made to suffer for that grave injustice?"

Mr. Woolridge said: "I am asking you to set aside this argument, this compromise settlement, as being gravely unfair, unjust and unenforceable."

Bank of Bermuda lawyer Tim Marshall however, claimed Mr. Bueno and Mr. Cottle would have been fully aware of Mr. Robinson's financial affairs.

He said the case should be decided on whether the Chief Justice felt there was 'express authority' or 'implied authority' given to Mr. Robinson's lawyers.

If not, he had the power to overturn the settlement if he felt it would constitute "a grave injustice".

"Our case is that on the facts of the evidence this is a situation of express authority and that if we are right, that is the end of the matter," said Mr. Marshall.

"We submit that the court goes no further other than to recognise and enforce the agreement that the two counsel have reached.

"There's no reliable evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Bueno acted without authorisation at the time the deal was struck.

"After November 14 Mr. Robinson may have changed his mind but it came after the deal was struck, and that's too late."

Mr. Marshall added: "We respectfully submit that there is no grave injustice in this case. Mr. Robinson was represented by eminent Queen's Counsel and Mr. and Mrs. Robinson had time to think about the offers and counter-offers.

"His lawyers were well aware of his alleged losses and were asking for material from him at all times.

"It's not proper to think Mr. Cottle did not forward documents to Mr. Bueno."

He said: "Whether or not the Robinsons obtained independent legal advice, we say it's irrelevant when Mr. (Andrew) Martin (the bank's former lawyer) was of the understanding from their lawyers that the contents of the Deed were agreed and would be executed."

Chief Justice Richard Ground QC said yesterday: "This judgment raises many complex points and I am going to have to reserve judgment."

He is expected to deliver his judgment in the next couple of weeks.

The dispute between Mr. Robinson and the bank started with a $1.7 million loan he took out in June 1992 to refinance his debts.

He claimed the bank pressurised him and his wife into the loan while knowingly having information he would be in default.

Mr. Robinson's lawyers say e-mail correspondence shows bank employees were aware his name could be linked to a criminal investigation but proceeded with the transaction.

They then disclosed personal financial information to the Police and also Mr. Robinson's boss, David Gutteridge. He was fired from his job in July 1992.

Mr. Robinson was never interviewed by Police or prosecuted for any offence. But after losing his job he defaulted on the loan and his house in Town Hill Road, Flatts, was possessed in 1996 as security.

Two years later he issued a lawsuit against the Bank of Bermuda for breach of trust and confidentiality.

In 2007 Court of Appeal judge Charles Etta-Simmons dismissed the case, saying the statute of limitations had expired. But she said another lawsuit by Mr. Robinson, 'no. 241 Action' in 2002, which adds allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and sales at undervalue, can continue.

While awaiting a hearing Mr. Robinson's lawyers and the bank's legal team began negotiating an agreement for "complete settlement of all claims", in August 2008.

The 'no.241 Action' from 2002 which alleges the Bank committed fraud, is still outstanding pending a settlement being reached.