by Nick.Robinson » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:45 pm


I don’t want to talk about all the ins and outs of the matter…..

The fact that he has signed a trust deed (the second time he has done so to achieve debt relief) and did so shortly before court action started puts a whole new facet on the case. I will say that the court case would not have proceeded had the trust known he had signed a trust deed and that he has had many opportunities to tell us about it. I did check the register of insolvencies in November when I prepared the court papers but nothing showed until December and so we did not know of it when the case commenced.

More later once I know the outcome of our application on Monday!



Re: Court case

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

A couple of points on the discussion…..

…..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…..

….. 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.

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.


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!


Re: Court case

by Nick.Robinson » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:42 pm

…..The case can no longer go ahead against Jim because he has not informed the court or the trust that he has signed a Trust deed and now can’t be pursued for the costs….




Nothing showed, it was not recorded, and Mr. Gallacher’s solicitor was a simpleton.

Did something turn the TOADMEISTER blind?