The Supreme Court has struck out allegations that Butterfield Bank breached financial duties in connection with a land grab more than 50 years ago.

Family members of the late John Augustus Alexander Virgil have argued that the bank sought to conceal the fraudulent sale of his property before his death, depriving his beneficiaries of their inheritance.

Past cases had been dismissed but the family launched a new case in 2024 and argued that the findings of a Commission of Inquiry, as well as handwriting evidence, were enough to bring the case back before the Supreme Court.

However, in a ruling delivered this month, Chief Justice Larry Mussenden found that the issues raised in the action had already been decided by the court and should not be relitigated.

He wrote: “It appears to me that a question was raised by the commission, rather than a conclusion. Further, the adverse finding was on the basis that there was an established fiduciary duty, for which I have found could not exist.

“In respect of the fresh evidence of a handwriting expert, I take the view that the beneficiaries had always, over decades, advanced a case that there was fraud involved in the conveyances of the real property.

“Thus, while the opinion of the handwriting expert is new evidence, the allegation of fraud or forgery is not new as it was alive and had been advanced since the death of Mr Virgil.

“Thus, the evidence of the handwriting expert does not amount to a special circumstance.”

Butterfield Bank did not respond to a request for comment as of press time last night.

In a statement, George and Charles Brown, the plaintiffs in the case, said: “While we respect the court’s decision to strike out our claim, the Browns’ resolve is stronger than ever. We will be appealing on several grounds of errors of law.

“A strikeout application normally takes between three and six months, yet after waiting for 13 months and enduring three missed indicated dates, we believe the judgment lacked analysis and was thin.”

According to the writ, Mr Virgil, who died in 1972, left in his will a four-acre plot of land to his seven nieces and nephews, with the bank appointed as sole executor of his estate.

However, when the beneficiaries submitted their claim for the property that year, they were told by the bank that the land had been sold by their uncle before he died.

Mr Virgil’s beneficiaries claimed that a conglomerate of lawyers, estate agents, government officials and financiers conspired to illegally seize his property.

A case was brought against the bank in 1991, alleging that as executor it had failed to properly investigate and identify the “fraudulent” sale of the property.

While the judgment stated that many court records had been archived or were “inaccessible” due to mould at the former court building at 11 Front Street, records provided by the bank stated that the courts had struck out the claims after finding that there was no reasonable cause of action.

Bank records also claimed that the applicants had been ordered to pay the bank $7,324 under a costs order, but had only paid $250 of that sum.

The allegations against the bank were subsequently heard by a 2021 independent Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses, which concluded that “several men were part of a criminal conspiracy” to dispossess Mr Virgil of his land.

The commission was presented with “fresh and compelling evidence” that documents purporting to show the sale of the land were forgeries.

The group also found that an internal four-year-long investigation by the bank in the 1970s was flawed, as was a subsequent police inquiry.

After the ruling, Mr Virgil’s family launched a new case against the bank — while the bank sought to strike the case out claiming there was no reasonable cause of action and an abuse of process.

In a ruling dated on Friday, Mr Justice Mussenden said the plaintiffs argued that their writ was grounded in newly discovered evidence of fraud and that justice demanded that the case proceed to trial to address an historic wrong.

They submitted that the report of the CoI was “transformative” and handwriting analysis provided first-time proof of forged signatures in the 1960s land transaction.

However, the bank argued that the bank did not owe any fiduciary duty with respect to real property under legislation in effect at the time and that it would be an abuse of the process to allow the case to be relitigated.

Mr Justice Mussenden ruled that the allegations were “stale” as they were almost identical to those made more than 30 years ago.

He wrote: “In my view the plaintiffs’ same allegations remain incapable of sustaining the claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the bank.

“I also agree with the bank that there is no factual basis to support that the bank was involved in any fraud or concealment with respect to the real property as alleged in the writ.”

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. 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.