A public hearing into racial discrimination allegations against the Bank of Bermuda can go ahead after the Appeals Court yesterday dismissed the bank?s attempt to quash the matter.

The appeal followed a ruling last October from Puisne Justice Charles Etta Simmons that a decision in 2002 by then Community Affairs Minister Randolph Horton to refer a racial discrimination complaint to a Board of Inquiry could stand.

Costs were awarded to the Community Affairs Minister as the respondent as well as to the affected party, Bermuda businessman Harold Darrell.

A source close to the matter said the two-day Appeals Court session could carry a price tag of up to $800,000.

Each party was represented by top ranking Queen?s Counsel from the UK, as well as a Bermuda-based counsel.

Mr. Darrell?s spokesman, Corey Butterfield, said the costs award was unexpected. He put Mr. Darrell?s costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for both last October?s judicial review proceedings and appeals case just heard.

Although the cost has been high, Mr. Butterfield said: ?Anyone that knows Mr. Darrell knows he?ll lose everything for justice.?

?We feel jubilation. This is everything and more than we wanted. Mr. Darrell is anxious and eager to get this to a public Board of Inquiry.?

Mr. Darrell is represented by Cherie Booth QC, a noted human rights lawyer and the wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The bank argued against paying costs to both parties saying it was common legal practice to only award costs to one party.

But the panel of Appeals Justices ? Appeals Court President Edward Zacca, Mr. Justice Sir Anthony Evans and former Chief Justice Mr. Justice Austin Ward ? said costs were being awarded to both because each party had separate issues to defend.

The ruling paves the way for Mr. Darrell to have his human rights complaint heard by a Board of Inquiry after more than four years trying to reach this point, although the dispute dates back to the mid-1990s.

Mr. Darrell, a former bank customer, alleges that a business deal turned sour in 1996 after a bank employee leaked confidential information about his personal account to the party he was negotiating with.

He claims repeated attempts to have the breach investigated by the bank were rebuffed or ignored.

An internal inquiry was led in 1999/2000 by former executive vice-president Allan Richardson, who was then the most senior black executive at the bank.

Mr. Darrell alleges the outcome of that inquiry was a finding that he had been wronged, and that the wrongdoing was racially motivated.

Because of alleged inaction by the bank and its senior management and directors to act on the findings of its own inquiry, Mr. Darrell took his complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Darrell has launched separate legal action against the bank for breach of confidentiality related to the incident the matter originally stemmed from.

On appeal, the bank fought to overturn a decision for Mr. Darrell?s human rights complaint to be heard by a Board of Inquiry, arguing that the complaint was biased, time barred, and had been wrongly re-opened after an earlier dismissal.

The Appeals Court ruled the complaint was never really dismissed by previous Community Affairs Minister Terry Lister because a letter of notice stating so had been ?unauthorised? and ?incorrect?.

The bank also contended it was the victim of at least the ?appearance of bias? because it was not given a chance to make representation to Minister Horton at the same time as Mr. Darrell sent the Minister a letter that also indicated a telephone conversation had taken place.

?We do not consider that the Minister did anything to give an appearance of bias, or to disqualify himself from performing his statutory role...nor in the circumstances did he act unfairly towards the bank by failing to involve them at that stage,? the Appeals Court ruled.

It said the issue of whether the complaint was time barred should be decided by the Board of Inquiry.

The bank could still seek leave from the Court of Appeal to take the matter to Britain?s Privy Council.

?While disappointed by today?s ruling, the bank respects the Court of Appeal?s decision and looks forward to establishing that Mr. Darrell?s allegations are totally without merit before a Board of Inquiry,? chief executive Philip Butterfield said in a prepared statement.

The bank refused to comment when asked by if it may try to take the matter to the Privy Council.

Even if the bank was given leave to take the matter to the Privy Council, this would not stall the Board of Inquiry proceedings without a stay being issued.