Summations in the Supreme Court civil case between the Bank of Bermuda and a former Hinson Island land owner will take place today.

Allan Edness, of Southampton, maintains that the Bank of Bermuda sold the Hinson Island property, he could no longer maintain, below market value.

Mr. Edness is suing the Bank of Bermuda for damages for breach of duty. He is also calling for an inquiry into the market value of the Hinson Island property and wants the court to order the bank to pay him the difference between the true market value, if it is found to be higher than the sale price, and the price the land was sold for.

Since the trial began in September of last year, Puisne Judge Richard Ground has heard from five plaintiff witnesses and six for the defence. The court heard how Mr. Edness purchased tree-covered land, complete with a dock, a view of Hamilton and a private beach, from Jones Waddington in 1989 for around $360,000. He made the purchase with funds from a loan from the Bank of Bermuda.

Mr. Edness cleared some of the trees from the land and began building a three-bedroom house. But five years after his purchase, Mr. Edness could not meet his obligations on the land. The bank sold the land for $295,000. One witness for the plaintiff, Hinson Island resident, told the court that he purchased his property, which contained a derelict house, in November 1995 for $500,000.

Yesterday, Arthur Jones, of Jones Waddington, testified that finding a buyer for an Island property was not easy. "You have to find a person who's willing to live in an isolated place,'' he explained. "Very few people are willing to put up with the lifestyle even though the situation and the amenities are beautiful.

"Therefore there is a very small number of buyers as opposed to that on the mainland.'' In setting the sale price for the land, Mr. Jones said he did not attribute much significance to the fact that there was partial construction on the land.

Real Estate valuer, Lawrence Sticca told the court that he completed an appraisal on the land for the bank.

He said he made a site visit and took pictures of the slightly elevated lot.

Mr. Sticca said that often purchasers did not want to buy something someone else had built. "Just because you threw a lot of bricks into the ground, doesn't mean that the market will pay for it.'' Under cross examination by Mr. Edness' lawyer Victoria Pearman, Mr. Sticca confessed that he was unaware, at the time he made the appraisal, that a lot containing a derelict house sold for $500,000.

And he admitted that if he knew about the sale, he would have compared the two properties when making the appraisal.

Member of Parliament and real estate boss Leonard Gibbons prepared a report on the property which suggested that only 15 percent of the proposed building was actually constructed on the land.

But under cross examination Mr. Gibbons acknowledged that he based his report on the instruction he received and pictures of the land in question.

And he admitted that he never paid a visit to the site and was unaware that it contained a private beach when he compiled his report. But Mr. Gibbons maintained his stance that other reports which suggested that the land alone was valued at $300,000 were incorrect. He said that in his opinion the land was worth $250,000 while the construction work was worth another $45,000.