A boxing referee is taking legal action against the sport’s governing body over claims it falsely gave the impression he was guilty of misconduct, the High Court has heard.

Jeff Hinds, who has officiated more than 1,250 contests in a career spanning more than 25 years, is suing the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) for libel over its handling of the outcome of a misconduct hearing, claiming it harmed his reputation.

The 62-year-old told a preliminary hearing in London on Friday that after being acquitted of misconduct in 2019, the BBBofC publicly stated online he had received “words of advice”.

Mr Hinds claimed someone reading the words on the body’s website would have falsely believed he had been found guilty of a “serious act of misconduct”.

The BBBofC, which oversees professional boxing in the UK, denies his claims.

Representing himself at the hearing before Mr Justice Kerr, Mr Hinds said he “could not achieve any justice and so took legal action to save his career as an official and to clear his name of any wrongdoing”.

He added: “Placing the name of the claimant (Mr Hinds) in the public domain despite him being totally exonerated from any wrongdoing was an egregious and malicious act.

“It has caused serious harm and reputational damage to the claimant.”

Mr Hinds previously claimed that he was accused by a fellow referee of “unprofessional” behaviour when he left a boxing event early in March 2019 and faced a misconduct hearing before the board’s southern area council.

He said on Friday that he was found not guilty of wrongdoing on June 5 2019, but received a letter the next day from the board informing him that he had been given “words of advice” – something Mr Hinds said was “untrue”.

That was then reiterated in a notice on the board’s website, which was visible for around six months.

Mr Hinds claimed that only those who are found or admit being guilty of misconduct are posted on the website, meaning an “ordinary and reasonable reader” would have believed he had committed a “serious act of misconduct”.

He described the board as being “reckless and irrational” in posting the notice, and said it had engaged in “skullduggery” by promoting the “perverted reality”.

Timothy Atkinson, representing the BBBofC, said that the body accepted that an “ordinary reader” would understand that the notice “referred to some kind of allegation of misconduct”, but “would have noted the lack of any statement” explicitly stating that Mr Hinds was guilty of an offence.

He said: “We don’t accept everything that Mr Hinds has said this morning at all, and it is not to be taken that we accept that as being accurate.”

Mr Atkinson said that anyone who assumed Mr Hinds was guilty of misconduct, despite there being no mention of it, would “have without doubt have been unreasonable and avid for any scandal”.

He also said that a reader would not have assumed that only those who were guilty of misconduct were posted on the website, or that Mr Hinds’ officiating career was over as a result of it being posted.

Mr Justice Kerr said that he would give his judgment on the meaning of the notice and whether it was defamatory at a later date.

Mr Hinds is also bringing a separate employment tribunal challenge against the BBBofC, claiming on Friday that he had been a victim of “discrimination, bullying and harassment” for decades.

A trial is set to take place in July, the court heard.

Another black boxing referee, Ian John-Lewis, withdrew his own race discrimination claim against the BBBofC after settling out of court in November last year.

In a statement following the settlement, in which the BBBofC made no admission of liability, the body said: “The BBBofC reaffirms its commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion, and will continue to work to ensure the trust of all those involved in the sport of professional boxing.

“There is no place for discrimination in this sport on the grounds of any protected characteristic, and the BBBofC strives to ensure that it upholds those values at all times.”