FROM THE DISAPPEARED TRUST FORUM

by Nick.Robinson » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:39 pm

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.

JUST A WEE MISTAKE? MR. ROBINSON KNEW FULL WELL THAT THERE WAS A £3,500 BOND IN PLACE TO COVER THE TRUST’S COSTS SHOULD IT WIN.

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.

JUST ANOTHER WEE MISTAKE?. MR. GALLACHER WAS ALWAYS AT LIBERTY TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST FALSE ALLEGATIONS, AND INTENDS SO TO DO AT THE FORTHCOMING PROOF HEARING ON 1ST NOVEMBER.

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?

JUST A THIRD WEE MISTAKE? THE TRUST HAS CITED ELEVEN WITNESSES. MR. GALLACHER’S SOLICITORS HAVE CITED LESS THAN HALF THAT NUMBER!

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.
JUST A FOURTH WEE MISTAKE? THE TRUST DEED HAD AND HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE CASE AND MR. ROBINSON’S ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM – WHICH SAW TRUE CREDITORS DEPRIVED OF A RIGHTFUL DIVIDEND – WAS REJECTED AFTER AN INVESTIGATION BY THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY.
Its a truism that many solicitors have only the vaguest understanding of insolvency but both of Jim’s solicitors to date should have known enough to be aware that the simplest way to have the action dropped would have been to inform the trust of the trust deed. Did they therefore know about it? Had we known about it, the case would not have proceeded and it was not recorded in the Register of Insolvencies when I checked in November 2010 prior to the case starting. To say as he did on Monday the trust deed was in the public domain is simplistic by the solicitor. He should know that his client has no locus to defend the case.

JUST A FIFTH WEE MISTAKE? THE TRUST DEED WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE EDINBURGH GAZETTE A MONTH BEFORE ROBINSON’S ILL FATED ‘SMALL CLAIM’ COMMENCED.

Re: Court case

by Nick.Robinson » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:23 pm

I think you are missing the point guys. It is no longer legally competent for us to pursue Jim Gallacher any more than he has any locus to continue. Our debt is now the responsibility of his trustee and there is a defined legal process for us to follow laid out in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 to make our claim, the trustee to adjudicate on it and us to appeal if we think that necessary. What needs to happen now is for proceedings to be brought to a close as soon as possible and the facts are that the costs incurred by everyone, the trust and Jim should never have been incurred and I lay the blame for that firmly at the door of one man and its not Jim Gallacher!

JUST A SIXTH WEE MISTAKE? IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ‘LEGALLY COMPETENT’ FOR THE TRUST TO PURSUE MR. GALLACHER SHOULD THE MEMBERSHIP SO DESIRE.

THE MESSAGE FOR THE PRESENT TRUST COMMITTEE IS VERY SIMPLE. ONLY A FOOL WOULD RELY UPON SOMEONE WHO MAKES SO MANY WEE MISTAKES IN LESS THAN THREE HOURS.