A Supreme Court Judge has thrown out Logic Communications' bid to be able to provide cheaper telephone services in Bermuda because the company could have gone to a review board instead of going to court.

In a written judgment Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux said that Logic Communications consciously and deliberately did not apply to the Telecommunications Commission and instead filed a suit with the Supreme Court.

Logic had applied to the Supreme Court to determine whether it could have its Internet-based LogicPhone service under its licence after Government ruled it was a criminal act.

Logic argues that the service will provide a much cheaper telephone service and should be allowed to operate it under its present licence. The Government disagrees.

The dispute has been running since last July when LogicPhone offered a service to its Internet customers which would allow them to make overseas telephone calls at much reduced rates.

Telecommunications Minister Renee Webb and the Solicitor General met with Logic shortly after. The Solicitor General then ruled that the service was in violation of the company's licence. The service was removed on August 1 and both sides have been battling it out since.

This court case -- in which TeleBermuda International joined in on the side of the Government -- was the latest instalment of the saga. Last month all three parties appeared in front of Mr. Justice Meerabux in chambers and the judge threw out Logic's case.

But details of why he decided not to arbitrate in the long-standing battle between Logic, its rivals and the Ministry of Telecommunications, were not made public until this week, when Mr. Justice Meerabux's written judgment was placed on public record at the Supreme Court.

In the nine page judgment Mr. Justice Meerabux said that, under section 13 (2) of the Telecommunications Act, Logic could have appealed the decision to the Telecommunications Commission, but failed to do so.

Mr. Justice Meerabux said: "I think that a dispute had arisen between the Plaintiff (Logic) and the First Defendant (The Minister of Telecommunications Renee Webb) as to the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's licence. I think that the Plaintiff could have used the prescribed procedure under section 13(2) of the act to request the commission to review the terms and conditions of its licence and I think that it was a conscious and deliberate decision on the part of the Plaintiff not to do so. However, the Plaintiff chose to file on 18 August 1999 an Originating Summons in Court seeking declaratory relief.'' Mr. Justice Meerabux said that he was guided by principles of law that a court may refuse a court action if "an alternative remedy existed but the applicant failed to use it.'' He said: "I think that the real issue concerning the terms and conditions of the licence can be sensibly determined through the statutory mechanism provided under the act.

"Having looked at the circumstances and considered the nature of the alternative statutory mechanism I rule that the plaintiff had not taken advantage of that mechanism.''