rules of the Supreme Court, natural justice, and Bermuda's constitution.

He was attacked for slapping the $100,000-a-day fine on the Bermuda Industrial Union and ordering seizure of its assets.

BIU lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP said the Chief Justice ruled after finding the union in contempt of court for striking despite a Government-inspired injunction.

But that finding followed a private -- or ex parte -- Supreme Court hearing with the Attorney General's chambers.

The union was not present, and had not been invited to state its case, argued Mr. Hall.

He added: "Can proceedings for contempt of court ever be brought ex parte? No they can never be.'' Mr. Hall branded, therefore, as "void'' the sequestration order -- which authorised seizure of BIU assets.

"It is a nullity, and that is our ultimate proposition.'' Mr. Hall, who handed in a 49-page document outlining his arguments, spoke during yesterday's Court of Appeal hearing over the BIU's case against the Chief Justice's Supreme Court ruling.

He is fighting to prove the ruling was fundamentally in error, and throw out the "conviction and sentence for contempt.'' The Chief Justice made the sequestration order on July 1 at the height of the national strike over the Bermuda Forwarders' dispute.

He later ordered a stay of execution on the order, pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing.

Among those watching proceedings were BIU president Mr. Ottiwell Simmons MP and union general secretary Ms Molly Burgess.

Yesterday Mr. Philip Holder, from the Attorney General's chambers, opened with a preliminary objection.

He also sought to lift restraints on the sequestrators -- the accountants appointed to seize the union's assets.

Mr. Holder said the union's appeal was "premature'' and "misconceived'', and should have been delivered to the Supreme Court.

"The order should be set aside by the court that made it. This is not an appropriate venue to do so.'' Mr. Holder said the main purpose of the BIU's appeal was to avoid the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice, and prevent his order "biting'' its assets.

BIU appeals "In my submission this appeal is nothing more than a smokescreen. It's full of procedural technicalities.'' Mr. Holder argued it was contrary to law and proper practice for the union to bypass the Supreme Court.

And he said the Chief Justice was still open to persuasion from the BIU.

Mr. Holder recalled the events leading up to the sequestration order.

He said Government had won an interlocutory, or provisional, injunction on June 29, restraining its employees from secondary industrial action.

Many union members disobeyed the injunction, which led to buses and ferries grinding to a halt, few containers coming off the docks, and restricted garbage services.

Access to the airport was also blocked at one stage, and tourists were seriously inconvenienced, said Mr. Holder.

It was then Government returned to the Chief Justice on July 1 and applied for the injunction to be enforced.

The $100,000-a-day fine was to take effect from midday on July 2, said Mr.

Holder.

He added the BIU had taken a "calculated risk'' Government would not seek to have the order enforced.

Mr. Hall, however, said the Court of Appeal was the correct forum for reviewing the Chief Justice's ruling.

He urged the appeal judges to indicate how the Supreme Court fell into "fundamental error.'' Mr. Hall said the Chief Justice's finding of contempt was clearly a final decision.

"The appellants do not seek to purge their contempt; they say they were not in contempt in the first place.

"As far as the appellants are concerned there is nothing to purge. In bringing this appeal, the appellants seek to overturn the finding they are or were guilty of contempt.'' Mr. Hall stressed the union refuted Government claims the industrial action was unlawful.

All action had related to the transportation industry, into which category Bermuda Forwarders fell.

Mr. Hall said failure to give the union a chance to argue its case before the Chief Justice was a "flagrant and unlawful breach of the rules of natural justice and the rules of the Supreme Court.'' The Bermuda Constitution, he added, had also been breached by the Chief Justice's failure to provide a fair hearing "upon the issue of depriving the appellants of property without compensation or legal due process.'' Today Mr. Holder will reply, before the appeal judges rule on his preliminary objection.

Mr. Hall said his rebuttal of the objection contained all the arguments of the BIU's appeal.