The public may never know the true cost of the new Berkeley Institute if Government is able to bury the financial outcome of a lengthy legal battle with the contractor kicked off the project.

A source told The Royal Gazette that if a financial settlement has been reached between Government and Pro-Active Management — as reported by broadcast media earlier this week — or if the arbitrators make an award, it could simply be listed in next year's financial statements under general expenditure.

The Royal Gazette understands that the lengthy hearings ended this week. The arbitrators, said to be among the best in the world in their field, are due to return in about two weeks to hand down their decision.

"One way or another the payment is going to hit the accounts but it's whether it's going to be classed as a 'subsequent event' for 2007 or if it won't be until the following year and it just appears as a number as part of expenditures," said the source. "It could just go down as 'contractor's payment'."

But Shadow Works and Engineering Minister Jon Brunson said he believed the settlement — which is likely to run into millions of dollars — would have to appear as a supplementary item in the next Budget.

"I think this will have to come before the House (of Assembly) to be debated," he said. "It's not something that I think that they could include in the general budget items."

The new Berkeley building in Pembroke — which opened in September 2006 — was originally budgeted at $68 million but the cost eventually rocketed to more than $130 million, according to the Opposition.

Pro-Active, the contractor initially hired to build the new school, sued Government for wrongful termination after being sacked in 2004 and Government countersued.

The arbitration proceedings aimed at resolving the matter out of court are subject to a strict gagging clause .

Broadcast media has suggested Government may have to pay as much as $5 million to Pro-Active but Acting Attorney General Michael Scott refuted that on Tuesday, saying a report on VSB television news was "grossly inaccurate".

He said: "The airing of this story without first seeking some verification or corroboration of its accuracy was irresponsible and prejudicial to the arbitral process.

"We believe that VSB should issue a retraction, a clarification and an apology to its viewers and both parties concerned."

Mr. Brunson said yesterday that the United Bermuda Party had long called for details of the dispute to be put in the public arena.

He believes Government will eventually be forced to disclose the amount.

"It will have to because it's a settlement outside the general parameters of the scope of the work," he said. "This is an extraordinary circumstance.

In March, the Government revealed that the cost of the legal wrangle with Pro-Active had reached $1.4 million.

The source said Government was under no obligation to reveal the amount of any settlement though it might be expected to if it was significant.

They added that when the Government's Consolidated Fund financial statements are filed for 2006/7 the accounts may show the settlement as a 'subsequent event' after the March 31 year end.

But if that is not the case the figure may simply be swallowed up within next year's general expenditure.

Pro-Active boss Arthur Ebbin and the company's legal adviser Julian Hall both declined to comment.

* Are you a sub-contractor still owed money from Pro-Active for the Berkeley project? Call reporter Sam Strangeways on 278-0155 or email sstrangeways@royalgazette.bm.