A legal dispute between the Government and a trio of tech companies has returned to the Supreme Court over complaints about disclosure in the ongoing case.

BPMS Ltd, InnoFund Ltd and InnoFund Innovation Incubator Ltd launched a case against the Government of Bermuda alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation by the Government over a proposal to develop software and a technology incubator.

While the Government guaranteed a $2.5 million loan on behalf of InnoFund in 2021, the companies claimed that the Government failed to provide data required for the project or funding for the innovation incubator.

The tech hub suspended its operations in 2022 after the dispute with the Government arose.

At a hearing yesterday, counsel for the companies alleged that the Government was dragging its feet in responding to disclosure requests.

However, counsel for the Government said the requests cast an unreasonably broad net.

The court heard that the plaintiff had called for the disclosure of e-mails and messages about the project between ministers and public servants since 2019 — but the search had uncovered almost 23,000 documents, which needed to be reviewed.

The search for documents was also complicated by the lingering impact of the September 2023 cyberattack on government systems, and the turnover of staff.

John Hindess, counsel for the plaintiff companies, said that only about 100 documents had been provided so far, with the Government stating that it would take more than a year to complete the requested disclosure.

He also said that 11,000 documents had previously been reviewed for a 2023 Pati request made in connection with the same matter.

Delroy Duncan, KC, for the Government, said that the Pati document review had been carried out by the Office of the Information Commissioner.

He argued that the request amounted to a fishing expedition and called on the court to direct the plaintiffs to provide a more tightened disclosure request that would be less burdensome to the Government and the courts.

“Right now the task has been made onerous and we say it’s not in compliance because it’s unprincipled and wide-roaming,” Mr Duncan said.

Mr Hindess responded that the Government had not previously raised any issue about the breadth of the request and had only requested more time.

Puisne Judge Andrew Martin adjourned the matter until September, giving the plaintiff companies 28 days to provide further and better particulars of their complaint so that the request for disclosure could be tightened.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers