Description: post Yesterday, 11:11 PM
Post #14

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 11,584
Joined: 18-July 05
From: La Scala
Member No.: 351


I haven’t a clue why the court thread has disappeared when everybody was saying how good it is to have things out in the open.

So here’s my response to Nick’s E-Mail:-

Nick had stated the below, so I believe:-


The following is a quote from my letter to your solicitor dated 13 August 2010, referring to our meeting on 5 August 2010. That letter was acknowledged by your solicitor when he finally got round to replying to in a letter dated 10 October.

My letter said:

“There are other matters relating to what happened on the night but we clearly requested at your office that your client forwards to the trust the £253 which he admits to having. To date nothing has been received.”

Your solicitor asked in his letter of 10 October where to send it to notwithstanding that all correspondence clearly requested that responses should be directed to me and I was known to be the trust treasurer. I made that clear in my reply of 21 October but it still took until March before payment was made.

You and I have different views of the night in question and I see little point in continuing this exchange. Save to say that you are very dismissive of my views. The trust only stopped the action because the law says we have to. That is my opinion as an insolvency practitioner of over thirty years experience but its not just mine. It is also the opinion of our solicitors and a number of leading figures in Scottish insolvency whom I have consulted about the insolvency aspects of the case. Somehow you presume that I have not taken advice?

If the case comes to court we will see who is right but in the meantime it is sisted in accordance with the recent court ruling.

I will not engage further on this because it is pretty pointless.. I only did defend the particular point about whether there was a debt or not relative the trust deed because of the misleading remarks being made about it

My response….

Thanks Nick…

People will be grateful to read what was actually said, and of course I ‘admitted to having’ the £253 – you couldn’t have put it more fairly. As I have now said repeatedly I was holding it in good faith. You clearly accepted that at the time. There’s no mention of ‘debt’ or of money being ‘owed’.

Now to the best of my knowledge the cheque was sent in November, only a couple of weeks after October’s Letter.
I’m well aware that you stated at the meeting in August that you couldn’t bring along the Trust Bank Account Pay In book as it’d be lost so maybe that’s why you’re mixed up with the date of receipt of the cheque, alternatively maybe you just didn’t bank it till March but it was definitely sent off in the November.

About your other material:-

One minute you’re saying there’s no precedent in law (‘I have never come across a case such as this where an individual in a protected trust deed defends a debt.) and then you’re back to ramming ‘facts’ down folks throats! (‘The trust only stopped the action because the law says we have to.’). There’s an explanation which even I can see clearly.


You really need to make up your mind about things Nick, and accusing me of being ‘dismissive of your views’ is very unfair, because I don’t deny anybody the right to express ‘views’, so long as they say they’re only views.

You’re also upset that I ‘presume that you have not taken advice’, and you’ve done some ‘name dropping’ to boost your opinion. Again that’s fine by me so long as you make it clear that it’s JUST THEIR OPINION. For what it’s worth Nick the alternative opinion has been formed after extensive talks with my Trustee, advice from Harper MacLeod’s dedicated insolvency department, and ‘rubber stamping’ by an in-house retired senior sheriff.

NOW to the matter which you have deliberately evaded twice.

What are you going to do about my co-organiser’s debt??

Why are you doing NOTHING about a substantial PROVEN ‘debt’ more than twice and arguably FOUR TIMES the size of the £253 I held in safe keeping and in good faith for my fellow Trust Members after the Chairman refused to allow payment into the bank account. 

This is VERY SERIOUS Nick.

I just want treated fairly and I want the Trust membership to know what’s really going on. You admitted at the S.G.M. that he has a debt of £535, but my figures show over £1000, so to keep it fair let’s split the difference. That’s EIGHT HUNDRED POUNDS you have a RESPONSIBILITY to pursue for the Trust membership Nick. Why are you doing nothing?

Just in case you’ve forgotten, in the final paragraph of that letter you’ve just quoted you said:-

‘Finally, I should like to 

confirm that I do not ascribe 

all of the losses arising from 

the Stars of 79 evening to 

Jim Gallacher, and the 

figures and explanations 

presented to us by Mr. 

Gallacher concerning Sean 

Donnelly, at the meeting are 

helpful to my ongoing 

investigation. That there are 

other matters not related to 

Jim Gallacher under 

investigation has been the 

case since the start of my 

involvement and insofar as a 

reasonable case can be 

made, recovery will be 


So I now put it to you for the third time.

What ARE you going to do about my co-organiser’s debt Nick??