Taxpayers will pick up the tab for a lawsuit launched by the One Bermuda Alliance administration and likely to be dropped under the new Progressive Labour Party government.

The civil suit, filed in Massachusetts against the Lahey Clinic, is expected to be swiftly ditched by Attorney-General Kathy Simmons, but the Government’s bill for its Boston legal team will be substantial.

In addition, Lahey is unlikely to walk away without either negotiating a settlement from the Government or pursuing costs against it before a judge.

A legal source, who asked not to be named, told The Royal Gazette: “Lahey is likely to appeal to a judge for costs unless they have beforehand negotiated that they would not pursue costs. It would be a matter of negotiation.”

Parliament heard in March that the cost to the Government of a retainer and legal expenses for Boston law fim Cooley LLC to date was about $426,000.

Asked to comment on expected additional expenses, Trevor Moniz, then the Attorney-General, said: “It is really impossible to predict in litigation cases. If Lahey were to, you know, either give in or negotiate a settlement the thing would be over tomorrow, but it just depends.

“You cannot predict what is going to go on in these legal cases. There is no ceiling to it, but obviously you make judgments as you go along.”

He said Cooley charged up to $750 an hour in legal fees, adding: “We feel we have negotiated very reasonable charges in terms of the hourly rates for such a major law firm.”

David Burt, the Premier, supported a bid by Lahey this year to have the case dismissed, as did three other ministers in his new Cabinet: Zane DeSilva, Walter Roban and Kim Wilson.

Mr Burt, while Opposition leader, also spoke out against the legal action in the House of Assembly, questioning how the information in the civil complaint was obtained by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and suggesting it could affect Bermuda’s relationship with the United States.

His public opposition to the case suggests it will be quickly discontinued under the new PLP government.

A separate lawsuit, filed locally and concerning an additional $20 million spent beyond earliest estimates on renovations at Port Royal Golf Course under the last PLP government, is also expected to be withdrawn.

The proceedings were brought against Mr DeSilva, along with his company Island Construction, fellow Port Royal trustees Wendall Brown and Delano Bulford, and SAL Ltd, in March this year, when he was a backbench Opposition MP.

Mr DeSilva is now Minister of Social Development and Sport. He and his fellow defendants were accused of “self-dealing” in the lawsuit, which he pledged to fight “to the end”.

The legal source said Mr DeSilva might be prepared to walk away without costs rather than putting himself in the “invidious position of going after costs from the same government he serves in”.

Both lawsuits were filed by Mr Moniz in the space of three weeks in the spring, prompting the PLP to say in a statement: “The actions taken by Trevor Moniz and the One Bermuda Alliance are reminiscent of dictators who used political power and influence to victimise their enemies and are alien to a modern, sophisticated jurisdiction like Bermuda.”

The Lahey lawsuit, for unspecified damages, alleged that the teaching hospital had conspired with Ewart Brown, the former PLP premier, on a “corrupt” scheme carried out “at the expense of the Bermudian Government and people”.

The unproven accusations included that Dr Brown used his position as a minister to promote Lahey’s interests in Bermuda and the hospital paid him “bribes disguised as consulting fees” to do so. It was claimed that Dr Brown’s clinics in Paget and Smith’s conducted “excessive, medically unnecessary and frankly dangerous scans” to increase payments received from health insurers, with Lahey overseeing the alleged over-testing but staying “silent” to keep its consulting relationship with Dr Brown intact.

Lahey pledged to “vigorously defend” the proceedings and Dr Brown said the lawsuit contained “countless lies and ridiculous allegations”.

The Port Royal proceedings sought compensation for “breach of fiduciary duty,” compound interest and costs from Mr DeSilva and his co-defendants.

The lawsuit concerning the publicly owned golf course alleged that Mr DeSilva, Mr Brown and Mr Bulford took part in “self-dealing” while serving on its board of trustees.

It was claimed that companies linked to the trio provided goods and/or services to Port Royal but the men did not properly declare their interests or recuse themselves from decision-making.

The $10.9 million Port Royal overspend was criticised by the Auditor-General in a special report released in 2014 and, more recently, by the Commission of Inquiry, as part of its investigation into the misuse of public funds.

The CoI subpoenaed Mr DeSilva’s brother, Allan, to answer questions about Island Construction’s involvement with the project, but he exercised his right of privilege and did not appear because, his lawyer said, of “a parallel criminal investigation”.

The commissioners concluded that continuing police investigations into the Port Royal contract and other contracts entered into by the Ministry of Tourism and Transport, when Dr Brown was in charge, should continue, “including the involvement of the minister/former Premier”.

The election result should have no bearing on any police investigations, as Bermuda’s Constitution ensures a separation of powers, with responsibility for the police lying with the Governor.

A long-running police investigation into claims of corruption against Dr Brown began in June 2011, when the PLP was in power.

The Royal Gazette asked Mr Burt and the Attorney-General’s chambers for comment, as well as Mr DeSilva and a Lahey spokesman, but none responded by press time.

UPDATE: this story has been amended to confirm that the $20 million relates to additional monies spent beyond earliest estimates for the Port Royal project. The official overspend was $10.9 million. It has also been amended to include comments made by Mr Moniz in Parliament in March about the cost of the Lahey lawsuit.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on what we consider to be a controversial or contentious story. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.