A family who allege that Butterfield Bank breached its financial duties in connection with a land grab have sought to bring their case to the Court of Appeal.

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

While a previous court case against the bank was dismissed, the family brought the matter back before the Supreme Court stating that the findings of a Commission of Inquiry, as well as handwriting evidence, were sufficient to have the matter reconsidered.

Chief Justice Larry Mussenden ruled this year that the issues had already been litigated and struck the matter out but the family have launched an appeal against that decision.

In a statement, the family said Mr Justice Mussenden’s ruling contained “multiple errors of law that go to the heart of fairness and due process”.

The statement claimed that the court awarded costs and made findings based on a 1991 consolidated claim that could not be located and that Mr Justice Mussenden had determined facts prematurely at the strikeout stage.

The family said: “Strike-out is meant for claims with no reasonable prospect of success, not for resolving contested facts.

“By deciding disputed issues prematurely, the court denied us the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.”

The family also said the decision failed to address key evidence or provide analysis of the Trustee Act 1975 or how it applied to allegations of reckless conduct and concealment.

The statement added: “This is not just about our family. When courts rely on missing documents, decide facts too early or omit analysis of key statutes and evidence, public confidence in the justice system is undermined.

“We are appealing so that these errors can be corrected and the case can be heard on its full merits.”

According to the original 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 and launched a case against the bank in 1991 alleging that as executor it had failed to properly investigate and identify the “fraudulent” sale of the property.

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 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 but the case was struck down by Mr Justice Mussenden who found the allegations were “stale”.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not 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