A New York chef is fighting a civil battle in the Supreme Court with the Minister of Immigration over a decision to revoke his work permit.

Former head chef Ian Friedman came to the Island four years ago to work at the East Meets West Bistro, owned by businesswoman Sharmila Gonzalves.

A year later he was convicted by Magistrate Edward King for using offensive language in a public place in a dispute between business partners.

When it came time to have the permit renewed, Mr. Friedman was denied permission and notified by the Department of Immigration to leave Bermuda by July 2003.

Mr. Friedman, a graduate of one of the world?s top cooking schools, New York?s Culinary Institute of America, came to Bermuda with his wife, who works with a leading insurance company on the Island.

Mr. Friedman maintains that there was a breach of the rules of natural justice and is represented by lawyer Michael Smith. Under principles of natural justice law a person is entitled to a fair hearing and full knowledge of the allegations made against him.

Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne was representing then- Minister of Immigration Terry Lister who revoked Mr. Friedman?s work permit.

In court yesterday Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley heard submissions from Mr. Bourne and from Mr. Smith.

The court heard that employees of the bistro who worked with Mr. Friedman, submitted letters to the Department of Immigration explaining why he should no longer be allowed to work on the Island.

Mr. Bourne told the court that the Minister had acted fairly within his discretion and exercised his powers to revoke Mr. Friedman?s work permit based on the fact Mr. Friedman did have a criminal record.

?A person does not have secure status if they expose themselves to the consequences of criminal law and he?s taking the risk that his work permit will be revoked,? said Mr. Bourne. An issue also raised in the court yesterday was the fact that guest workers cannot review letters sent to the Department of Immigration by members of the public who may decide to write in letter of complaint, a policy Government said they will address in the public information act.

Mr. Smith said this was a policy which needed review.

?People should be able to look at the information filed against them and as a matter of public policy we must make sure it?s not poisoning anyone?s decision against them.?

Mr. Bourne said Mr. Friedman made representations but did not deal with all the issues that he was afforded the opportunity to deal with.

But one colleague alleged that their employer coerced them into a writing a letter of complaint against Mr. Friedman.

Employee Dhanajay Kelkar wrote to Ms Gonsalves saying that ?you forced me and Mr. Hnumant Khandagale to write letters against Mr. Friedman as you were not on good terms with him. The punishment of not doing so was some constant fear of being fired and getting disciplined. I heard Mr. Friedman cannot get a work permit because of those letters.?

Mr. Justice Kawaley is expected to make a ruling on the matter in the next week.