insurance company boss and ordered him to pay the costs for the failed action.

The appeal was against orders issued by the Bermuda Supreme Court to restrict the appellant Mr. Mark Hardy from access to certain assets and to disclose a complete list of all assets.

The ruling came as a vindication for the efforts of the Bermuda firm of Coopers & Lybrand, the liquidators of Focus Insurance Company Ltd, and the liquidators' lawyers, Mello, Hollis, Jones & Martin.

Loser in the action Mr. Hardy was accused of milking his firm Focus Insurance of huge sums of money.

And it was revealed for the first time that there was a dramatic attempt before the Law Lords last month to have Mr. Hardy silenced.

At the beginning of the hearing, lead counsel for the Focus liquidators, Mr.

Saul Froomkin QC, submitted that Mr. Hardy should not be heard in view of his admitted contempt.

Mr. Froomkin of Mello, Hollis, Jones & Martin was assisted by Mr. Andrew Martin and English lawyer, Mr. David Ashton. The liquidators are Mr. David Lines and Mr. Peter Mitchell of Coopers & Lybrand.

In December of 1992, Mr. Hardy faced possible prison when he was declared in contempt by the Bermuda Supreme Court, after being found to be in breach of Mareva orders that restricted his access to certain assets and ordered him to disclose his full list of assets.

This week, the judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was delivered by Lord Jauncey of Tulichettle.

He wrote, in a judgment obtained by The Royal Gazette , that Mr. Hardy should be heard "in view of some possible confusion which might have arisen'' during the last Privy Council hearing in which Mr. Hardy won the right to be heard.

From a panel that included Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hoffmann and Sir Roger Parker, Lord Jauncey referred to Mr. Hardy's failed attempt to have the Chief Justice of Bermuda strike out the claim against him.

The case revolves around the attempt by the liquidators to recover US$19,714,142 from the failed company, Focus.

Lawyers for the liquidators obtained a default judgment from the Chief Justice against Mr. Hardy in January 1993 for the near $20 million.

Mr. Hardy argued before the Law Lords that his application before the Chief Justice to have the claim against him struck out included "facts'' that disproved the allegations in the pleadings.

Said Lord Jauncey, "The appellant appeared to have some difficulty in appreciating that a `striking out' application, save in circumstances, which do not here arise, is concerned solely with pleadings and not with facts.

"When the pleadings are examined it is absolutely clear that they disclose a proper cause of action. They set out details of a large number of payments made by the appellant from Focus funds for which it is alleged there was no justification. These payments, taken together, add up to the sum which is claimed.'' Lord Jauncey wrote that the statement of claim described, in one case, US$12,850,000 authorised and instructed by Mr. Hardy between March 1988 and September 1990 to his personal bank account, to named companies in which he had an undisclosed interest, and to other named companies, "and in almost every case in the absence of any obligation by or benefit to Focus.'' "The detailed averments in the claim give fair and adequate notice of the case against the appellant and their Lordships have absolutely no doubt that the Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal were correct in so concluding.'' Mr. Hardy also attacked an "Unless Order'' issued against him, delivered by the Chief Justice two days before Christmas of 1992.

The order was "(a) to sign and deliver to Focus within 21 days a letter of authority to eight specified banks and companies authorising them to disclose to Focus all documents relating to any account for the appellant from 1 8 to the date of the order, and (b) to file a list of all of his property and assets wheresoever situated within 14 days.

"This order (the Unless Order) provided that in the event of the appellant failing to carry out (a) or (b) within the specified time limits his defence would be struck out and judgment entered against him. When these two orders were made the appellant was represented by counsel but no evidence was led on his behalf and he was not present.'' Mr. Hardy maintained before the Law Lords that (argument 1) the two parts of the order were contrary to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

He also maintained that they were contrary to Article 1(c) of the Constitution of Bermuda which provides that every person is entitled to "protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of property without compensation.

He said they were also contrary to a portion of Article 3 which provides that "no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment''.

Mr. Hardy also attacked the "Unless Order'' by claiming (argument 2) that he had been denied a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, contrary to Article 6 of the Constitution. He said that the Chief Justice who pronounced the order had already decided the case against him by earlier pronouncing two Mareva orders, and by finding him guilty of contempt, and was therefore neither independent nor impartial. The Mareva orders imposed, neither of which were appealed, restricted Mr. Hardy's access to specified assets and restricted his monthly expenditure. It also required him to disclose the full value of his assets.

DEFEATED -- Mr. Mark Hardy at an earlier hearing.