was correct in charging stamp duty on over the counter trades of shares quoted on the Bermuda Stock Exchange.

But Chief Justice the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward said that, in future, public administrators ought to explain their decisions to the public when they are challenged.

"There can be no doubt that it is better for administrative officers, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, to give reasons for their decisions,'' said Mr.

Ward.

In doing so, "a person prejudicially affected by a decision would be adequately notified of the case he has to meet in order to exercise any right he may have to make further representations or effectively to exercise a right of appeal''.

The Accountant General "should bear this in mind when carrying out his functions under section 22 of the Stamp Duties Act 1976'', said Mr. Justice Ward.

Mr. Justice Ward dismissed an appeal by independently-owned Bermuda Investment Advisory Services against Mr. Hannam's interpretation of the Bermuda Stock Exchange Company Act 1992.

At the centre of the dispute was a section of the Act which stated: "The provisions of the Stamp Duties Act 1976 shall not apply to any instrument which relates to a transfer on sale of a security which is listed on the Exchange.'' Mr. Hannam who has since retired, had interpreted this to mean that only trades carried out on the Exchange were exempted from stamp duty, while BIAS, which is run by Mr. Robert Pires, argued that this section also exempted trades done off the Exchange.

Mr. Ward said the Act was "enacted for the benefit of a limited class of persons'', which did not include non-Exchange members.

"I remind myself of the rule of construction that, if in a private statute there are words which seem to express an intention to enact something unconnected with or unnecessary for the purpose of the promoters, they will, so far as possible, be construed in such a way as to avoid that effect,'' he said.

"I also bear in mind that general words of exemption in a local or private Act will not be construed as giving exemption from taxes imposed by a public general Act.'' The section of the Act in dispute "was intended by the Legislature solely for the protection of the interests of the petitioners and members of the Exchange'', he added.

It was not known yesterday if BIAS will appeal the decision. Lawyer Mr. Peter Martin, acting for BIAS, said: "It's a careful judgment which we need to consider carefully.''