Princess Hotel saying their case "fell at the first hurdle''.

Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground questioned whether Hamilton Properties had any right to appeal the Development Applications Board's approval of the Bermuda Financial Centre.

Victorious BFCL developers wasted no time in planning ground-breaking for the $130-million office and hotel complex, calling a 4 p.m. meeting of the board yesterday.

However, they might face one more fight.

Princess Hotels regional vice president Mr. Stephen Barker, "disappointed and surprised'' by the judgment, has not ruled out going to the Court of Appeal.

"The judgment will be carefully reviewed and after consultation with our legal counsel and reviewing our options, an appropriate course of action will be decided on,'' he said. A third appeal "was one option''.

But BFCL president the Hon. Michael Winfield said: "I'm not anticipating any appeal.'' As a result of the court's decision, he and developers were working on details regarding financing and construction. And a major announcement concerning the project was forthcoming, he said, refusing to say what it was.

The complex is set for the site of the old Bermudiana Hotel, which is almost next door to the Princess.

In his 13-page judgment, Mr. Justice Ground questioned Hamilton Properties' right to appeal the planning board's approval of the BFCL in the first place.

And he ruled against Hamilton Properties' arguments of bias and that the planning appeal process was unconstitutional.

He accepted Hamilton Properties' argument that its interest in the BFCL was that it was looking out for the public -- and not that it was concerned with potential competition from the complex. Lawyer Mr. Alan Dunch had claimed there were fears the economy and infrastructure could be burdened by a development that was "bound to fail''.

However, Mr. Justice Ground quashed the first limb of the appellant's argument that it had a constitutional and legal right to appeal the DAB's decision to the Minister. He found no such right existed even "giving the Constitution's most liberal interpretation''.

Princess loses appeal he went on to consider the appellant's bias argument.

He did not agree with the appellant's contention there was a danger of bias.

The argument arose out of Mr. Winfield being a former Government Minister.

Acting as Environment Minister, the Hon. Maxwell Burgess had heard Hamilton Properties' appeal against the DAB's decision to allow the development.

Mr. Burgess, who decided to uphold the decision, heard the appeal on behalf of Environment Minister the Hon. Gerald Simons because his private employer was a backer of the BFCL.

But Mr. Justice Ground found the appellant's claim of bias on the basis of the common membership of Mr. Burgess and Mr. Simons in the Cabinet was "really too remote''.

And he did not find Mr. Winfield's past membership of Cabinet was sufficient "to give rise to a real danger of bias in (the BFCL's) favour''.

They have no "community of interest in the outcome of this application whatsoever, and none is alleged,'' he said.

Mr. Dunch had argued there was a reasonable suspicion or likelihood of bias because Mr. Winfield was a former Cabinet member.

He based his argument on the right to an impartial tribunal guaranteed by the Constitution.