following their courtroom showdown over this summer's industrial turmoil.

It has also ruled out further legal action over the dispute which flared when 15 truckers at Bermuda Forwarders lost their jobs.

The decision comes after the Court of Appeal explained why it sided with the BIU.

In their explanation, the appeal judges accused the Chief Justice the Hon. Sir James Astwood of slipping up.

The union had appealed an order for its assets to be seized and a $100,000-a-day fine imposed for an alleged breach of an injunction demanding an end to illegal striking.

Government had won the order from the Chief Justice at the height of the unrest over the Bermuda Forwarders row.

Sir James later made a stay on his sequestration order for the assets seizure, pending the appeal hearing.

After a two-day hearing in July, the Court of Appeal overturned Sir James' ruling.

It has now given its reasons, backing BIU lawyer Mr. Julian Hall's main argument that Sir James had made his order at a private meeting with the Attorney General's chambers, which represented Government.

The appeal judges stated: "We are in principle reluctant to hold that such a course is proper.

"It is fundamental to the common law system that ... an order to the prejudice of a person should not be made unless he is first given the opportunity to appear and contest the order if this is reasonably practicable.

"He will not necessarily avail himself of that chance but it should be given to him.'' The judges underlined the fact that Sir James' order was made on July 1 -- but was not to take effect until noon the following day.

This flew in the face of Government's claim that normal proceedings should be waived because any delay could prove disastrous to the Country.

"It is difficult to see why Notice of Motion could not have been served, on short notice, on the BIU requiring it to attend on the morning of 2nd July to show cause why a fine and sequestration should not be ordered,'' stated the judges.

"We think the Chief Justice was in error in dispensing with service of the application for a fine and sequestration, when the urgency of the matter cannot have been such as to justify this course, since the order made was not to come into force until midday on the following day.

"This was a wrong exercise of a discretion, which should, in any event, only be exercised sparingly, when its effect is to impose a severe penalty upon a person without hearing him.

"On this ground ... we think that this appeal should be allowed and the Chief Justice's order of July 1 quashed.'' Yesterday Mr. Hall said he was unsurprised by the Court of Appeal's reasoning.

"The principle of law has been upheld,'' he declared.

Attorney General Mr. Walter Maddocks said the court's ruling hinged on a "misunderstanding'' of the facts.

Mr. Maddocks claimed Sir James' July 1 order had taken immediate effect -- although it did not bite until the following day.

But he did not believe an appeal by Government to the Privy Council would succeed.

"We have decided therefore to abandon any action, and have paid Mr. Hall costs which amount to $25,000.'' At one stage it was thought Government could face a bill of over $100,000.