The Supreme Court has struck out a complaint against the Bermuda Monetary Authority by a former employee who said the body infringed on his constitutional rights.

Craig Walls, who served as a senior analyst for the BMA, alleged that the body breached his right of freedom of association by requiring him to resign as a trustee of the Bentley Friendly Society in 2014 in order to continue his employment.

However, the BMA argued that the matter was already settled in a 2018 agreement and the case should be struck out.

While Mr Walls argued that the BMA could not bypass his constitutional rights through a contract, Puisne Judge Andrew Martin found in a June 12 judgment that the issues raised in the case had been resolved by the 2018 agreement.

Mr Justice Martin dismissed the case as an abuse of process, adding: “There must be finality in litigation.”

The court heard that Mr Walls worked at the BMA between 2000 and 2017 and, while employed by the body, served as a trustee of the BFS.

However, the BMA came to the belief that Mr Walls’s work with the BFS, which offers insurance to its members, was in conflict with the BMA’s responsibility to regulate insurance businesses.

As a result, in 2014 the BMA required Mr Walls to resign as a trustee and cease active participation in the promotion of the friendly society’s business.

While Mr Walls did resign as a trustee, the BMA said he continued to promote BFS’s interests, making allegations on behalf of the BFS that the BMA “may be misappropriating funds” and that the BMA was a “nefarious lot”.

The BMA terminated Mr Walls’s employment for serious misconduct and Mr Walls launched proceedings against the BMA arguing that he had been wrongfully terminated and that the BMA had infringed on his constitutional rights.

The BMA settled with Mr Walls in an agreement dated December 31, 2018, with Mr Walls receiving a sum of money and discontinuing the action with no order for costs.

However, Mr Walls launched new proceedings against the BMA in February seeking a declaration that his constitutional rights were infringed in 2014 when it ordered him to resign as a trustee.

The BMA responded that the claims should be struck out because they had already been resolved by the settlement agreement.

Mr Justice Martin said it was a basic legal principle that a party was not entitled to litigate the same issues twice and that it was “clear and undisputed” that Mr Walls intended to reopen the settled case.

He wrote: “Mr Walls promised to accept the sum paid as a complete satisfaction of his claim that his constitutional and other rights had been infringed.

“The settlement sum was paid so that Mr Walls’s claim was satisfied in full, although the BMA had always denied that there had been any breach of Mr Walls’s rights.

“In addition, Mr Walls expressly waived his right to make a claim that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the termination of his employment, or in relation to his former employment or otherwise.”

Mr Justice Martin said that under the settlement agreement, Mr Walls had agreed that if he breached the agreement he would have to pay back the settlement sum and reimburse the BMA for all of the costs associated with its recovery.

While he said the BMA did not seek repayment of the settlement sum, it was reasonable in such a case that Mr Walls should pay for the legal costs for the proceedings including the BMA’s strikeout application.

Mr Justice Martin wrote: “The present claim is clearly an abuse of process brought by Mr Walls in a wrong-headed violation of the settlement agreement.”

• 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