A SHOT ACROSS MCCORKINDALE’S BOWS..

There has apparently been heated debate on the MortonTrust forum today following  yesterday’s incidental application to the Sheriff court to have the’Stars of ‘79’ case against Mr. Gallacher dismissed on the grounds of  its legal incompetency.
Following  on from that,  Dr. Chris McCorkindale the Trust Secretary has  made a brief statement (his first update in five months) on the official Trust website:
 
Dr. McCorkindale has made no mention of the fact that that application was made several weeks ago and called in Greenock Sheriff Court yesterday, nor of the fact that the Trust previously offered to allow dismissal of the case, but on terms unacceptable to Mr. Gallacher and his solicitor.
 
Dr. McCorkindale has also alleged that the Trust’s solicitors informed the committee PRIOR to yesterday’s hearing that ‘nothing important would be decided’. He has claimed that there was no need for any of the committee to be there in order to report back to the membership. He has misleadingly described the hearing as ‘procedural’.
 
Mortonjag now challenges Dr. McCorkindale to refute the following FACT -not on the poorly subscribed Trust forum but out in the open on the OFFICIAL website.
 
FACT
 
YESTERDAY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE TRUST’S ARGUMENT, THEIR CASE COULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH COSTS AWARDED TO MR. GALLACHER AT THE ‘ORDINARY’ (UNRESTRICTED) LEVEL.
 
Here’s what the Scottish Courts website says in that regard:
 
4.23 Expenses:
 
‘There are exceptions to the normal limits on awarding expenses. Full court expenses may be awarded if the sheriff finds that either the pursuer’s or the defender’s conduct in the case has been unreasonable.  If full court expenses are allowed, the sum awarded will largely depend on the amount and nature of the work which has been done in the case.’
 
To date Mr. Gallacher’s legal expenses exceed £10,000 –EXPENSES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET IN FULL.
 
There’s another contentious issue about which Dr. McCorkindale has failed to update the membership – the significance of Trust rule 105.
 
The Trust’s solicitor and Mr. Gallacher’s counterpart are entitled to disagree on the interpretation of that rule, but here’s another FACT for the members to peruse.
 
FACT
 
SHOULD MR. GALLACHER’S APPLICATION FOR A DISMISSAL BE SUCCESSFUL, HE WILL SUE THE TRUST UNDER RULE 105 FOR ANY COSTS NOT ALREADY AWARDED BY THE SHERIFF.
 
MORTONJAG FORMALLY CHALLENGES DR. MCCORKINDALE TO GUARANTEE TO THE TRUST MEMBERSHIP THAT THE TRUST IS NOT PRESENTLY IN DANGER OF INCURRING A FIVE FIGURE EXPENSES BILL.
 
Here’s what rule 105 says:
 
105. ….’Subject to the provisions of the Act every officer is to be indemnified out of the assets of the Society against any liability incurred by him in defending any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in which judgement is given in his favour’….
 
….and such a judgement undoubtedly COULD have been made at yesterday’s hearing. 
 
Mortonjag cannot believe that the Trust’s lawyer stated PRIOR to the hearing that ‘nothing important could be decided’ – unless of course he had access to Sheriff Canavan’s mind!
 
For those who find it hard to get their heads around all the legal jargon, here’s a summary:
 
What SHOULD have happened yesterday WILL now happen on 4th November, and the FACT of the matter is that within minutes of the commencement of that hearing the Trust’s case may well have been dismissed with FULL OR SUBSTANTIAL costs awarded to Mr. Gallacher as  alluded to yesterday by His Lordship.
Mortonjag FORMALLY challenges Dr. McCorkindale to come clean with the membership about the possible total costs of this action. 


THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, AND ARE STILL ENTITLED TO KNOW.