Feeling a bit despondent? Need a good belly laugh? Then look no further than this piece of arrogant nonsense published on the exclusive 67 member Greenock Morton Trust forum by lying accountant and Chairman Nick Robinson!
Robinson created a fictitious debt by manipulation of figures. He claimed he would prove that debt in court.
Instead he was forced to go muck raking when the Trust solicitors suggested that his ‘open and shut’ court case was unlikely to succeed!
With no proven debt Mr. Gallacher was/is under NO obligation to the Trust.
That is the truth of the matter, as explained to Mortonjag by vastly experienced insolvency specialists in the legal AND accounting professions!
A couple of points on the discussion on here.
1) We should not now go to a proof. I do not believe that doing so will enhance or damage the reputation of the trust any more that not doing so but what is clear is that if the matter goes to proof it will cost us significantly more in our own legal costs than we can now recover. The facts are that if we win, we will only stand to gain a few pence in the pound at best.
LIAR – THE TRUST REJECTED A £3,500 BOND WHICH COVERS ITS FULL AWARD AND COSTS AT SMALL CLAIMS RATES! THAT BOND IS STILL IN PLACE.
2) Jim Gallacher had no right to defend this case.Those rights vested in his trustee whom it seems, knew nothing about the claim until advised by me and consequently all of the legal costs expended by both sides and the court’s time have been wasted.
LIAR AGAIN – COMPLETELY ‘FRUIT LOOPIN’ WRONG. IS THE LYING ACCOUNTANT REALLY SO IGNORANT OF HIS OWN SPECIALTY. INSOLVENCY LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO SUMS YOU ‘BELIEVE’ YOU ARE OWED!
3) 18 witnesses for the defence have apparently been listed by Jim and all of those will mean that the hearing is unlikely to conclude in one day if allowed to continue. This would appear to be all part of the determination to maximise the costs the trust is exposed to. If there are witnesses who can cast new light on the case, why have they not been produced sooner, whilst the matter was being discussed between his solicitor and us and before the court case started? We have instead gone for the most costly route! I wonder what has driven that?
MORE LIES. TWELVE OF THOSE ARE TRUST WITNESSES! THE DEFENDER WILL CALL ONLY HALF OF THE TRUST’S TOTAL. IS THE LYING ACCOUNTANT REALLY UNAWARE OF THAT FACT?
4) I wonder who knew about Jim’s trust deed? It seems to me that the principal advisors here are damned either way. If Ernie did not know, his client has let him down fairly badly as the trust deed has major ramifications for the case. If he did know then his egotistical all seeing eye has failed to grasp some fundamentals of insolvency law and knowing and not disclosing it shows him for the manipulative and disturbed creep that he is. In either case, I think he can kiss goodbye to the costs incurred to date and explain that down under.