Judicial review proceedings brought last month by the Bank of Bermuda to stop a human rights complaint being heard by a public board of inquiry will have to start all over again after Puisne Judge Phillip Storr removed himself from the case.

And Mr. Storr could be heading for a professional conduct investigation by the Bar Council.

Local businessman Harold Darrell filed a racial discrimination complaint against the bank almost three years ago.

The bank declined to participate in the human rights proceedings and complaint was dismissed under controversial circumstances.

Efforts by Mr. Darrell, owner of Hardell Entertainment, to have his case heard has been vigorously resisted by the bank in numerous court hearings. But Mr. Darrell has been equally persistent. The current case, now stalled, was brought by the bank to reverse a decision by Community Affairs Minister Randolph Horton to refer the case to a board of inquiry. Midway through the hearing, however, Mr. Darrell accused acting Mr. Storr of a conflict of interest because the bank had been a client in another case involving Mr. Storr.

"Cox, Hallet, and Wilkinson, the firm from which Mr. Storr practices, represents Bermuda Home, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank," a Hardell statement claimed.

"In and of itself, this fact is enough to create an appearance of bias. However, the appearance of bias is significantly aggravated as Mr. Storr is Bermuda Home's lawyer...Given that Mr. Storr represents the bank in its action against Mr. Dilton Robinson, another Black Bermudian businessman, Mr. Darrell is certain that Mr. Storr, the bank, and Mr. Elkinson (the lawyer who represented the bank at trial) knew of the conflict."

Hardell spokesman Corey Butterfield confirmed that, following a meeting in chambers, Mr. Storr, who was in the midst of writing his ruling, had recused himself from the case.

"There was a meeting in chambers on Monday with Melvin Douglas (Government's lawyer), Victoria Pearman, standing in for our lawyer Ian Kawaley, Phillip Storr and Jeffrey Elkinson. Phillip Storr has recused himself."

Mr. Storr had threatened to award costs against Mr. Darrell, arguing that Dr. Kawaley should have raised the issue earlier and claimed that he was not biased in favour of the bank, said Mr. Butterfield.

In the course of his argument he said he had sympathy for the bank, Mr. Butterfield continued.

Mr. Storr did not return calls to his office seeking comment.

"He recused himself and there is no doubt in my mind that Phillip Storr knew that he shouldn't have taken that case. It's not for any client in the face of such evidence. The judge should have known it from the outset," continued Mr. Butterfield. He added: "Bias begins with representation by the firm. The fact that he personally represented the bank is just an aggravating feature."

Mr. Elkinson told The Royal Gazette that the bank was just keen to get on with the case.

He would not say whether he agreed that Mr. Storr's sitting on the case was a conflict of interest. "We want to move forward on the issue that was raised in our summons," the lawyer said.

"Mr. Darrell has raised the matters that concern him, and the judge has acceded to the application... Whether I think they are right or not is totally irrelevant. I don't want Mr. Darrell to have any doubt that he didn't get a fair hearing."

Mr. Butterfield said that a formal complaint to the Bar Association is in the works. "I am extremely concerned. It's now two and a half years and Mr. Darrell's rights still haven't been determined. Two commissions have recommended a board of inquiry. One minister has referred it to a board of inquiry," he said.

"We intend to take this complaint as far as we can. I definitely think he should be disciplined. If he can do this to a human rights case what else can he do to a commercial case? He knew better. The bank knew and the bank's lawyer knew. How could they not know? And to try to chastise Dr. Kawaley is just disgusting."