The Bank of Bermuda yesterday won a round in its ongoing legal dispute with Bermudian businessman Dilton Robinson.

Mr. Robinson is pursuing a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the Bank, which had appealed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling allowing him to add fraud allegations.

His original claims alleged breach of confidence and breach of trust with respect to a $1.7 million loan Mr. Robinson took from the bank in 1992.

The bank had argued that Mr. Robinson's action was time barred.

"It has always been our contention that Mr. Robinson's claims were out of time. Mr. Robinson had sought to plead fraud as a legal tactic, in order to try and avoid his claims being defeated because he had filed them too late. The bank took the position that he was not in a position to do so as these matters occurred over a decade ago.

"The Court of Appeal has agreed," said a bank spokesperson in a written statement. "The bank has investigated all the claims made by Mr. Robinson and is fully satisfied that the bank and its officers and employees acted appropriately in dealing with him during the period in question. The claims are nothing more than an attempt by Mr. Robinson to place responsibility on the bank for the consequences of his own actions."

The bank's statement added that it will be pressing for a trial on Mr. Robinson's other allegations "without delay".

"At that time the bank will present all the evidence for the court to make a determination, and the bank is confident that the facts will show that these claims too are without merit. Until these matters are determined by the court the bank does not believe it appropriate to comment further."

Mr. Robinson's lawyers could press on with the fraud allegations in a separate action. Yesterday lawyer Clare Hatcher, who with top UK lawyer John Anthony Roberts represented Mr. Robinson, said she could not comment until she had studied the judgment and consulted with her client.

The appeal did not address the merits of the case but centered on whether the action should go ahead as amended.

During hearings which started November 14, the court heard that a bank official John Fargey encouraged Mr. Robinson to take the loan, with his and his wife's combined assets as security, so he could consolidate his debts. The bank and the Police service were at the time also engaged in an investigation into possible criminal activities and the Bank discovered information that linked Mr. Robinson to the Police investigation. However the bank decided to proceed with the transaction, release the information to the Police and Mr. Robinson's employer David Gutteridge, a bank shareholder, who then fired him.

"It was realised that if the information in question was released to third parties or to the police the effect on Mr. Robinson would be extremely adverse, even to the extent of costing him his employment, and thereby his ability to repay the loan offered," yesterday's ruling stated.

"The bank through these two servants, had then determined to press ahead with the offer before advising the Police, the better to secure the bank's position against Mr. Robinson's potential difficulties."

Mr. Robinson had in 1996 discovered internal e-mails/mails between now Bank CEO Henry Smith and Mr. Fargey in which Mr. Fargey revealed the discovery of the information and enquired about going ahead with the transaction, and Mr. Smith giving the go-ahead.

"We understand now that following his dismissal Mr. Robinson was unable to service the loans and that the bank therefore called in and realised the securities that had been given."

The ruling describes Mr. Robinson's as more of a "complete redraft" than an amended statement of claims.

"The draft amendment added as well a bewildering number of new claims, including allegations of undue influence, unconscionable conduct, misrepresentation and fraud or constructive fraud."

Mr. Robinson's lawyers had argued that the bank had concealed the e-mails/mails and so the limitation period would have to be extended.

But the court agreed with the bank's argument that it was up to Mr. Robinson to show that the action was not time barred before he could be allowed to add the fraud allegations.

"No affidavit was filed in the court below, but the judge appears to have been satisfied that the allegations made in the Statement of Claim were in themselves sufficient evidence. With respect that is unacceptable," the ruling states.

It also agreed with the bank that the new allegations, by suggesting that the bank had moved from a normal banker/customer relationship to that of a financial adviser moved the claims into new territory and therefore could not be dealt with as part of the same action.