ULTRA VIRES!

 

With the Morton Trust’s claim invalidated on lack of evidence, Jim Gallacher instructed Harper Macleod LLP to seek a decree in his favour with full costs under Rule 105 of the Trust constitution. That was only fair.

The Trust had been free to continue with its ill fated action in 2011 but had insisted that the Trustee adjudicate instead, and the court had acceded.

In May 2016, there was a tacit agreement between Andrew Upton of Harper Macleod and Peter Harvey of Blair & Bryden that dismissal was unopposed although expenses remained disputed. Astonishingly, when the matter returned to court Ms. Carrick for the Trust, ‘insisted on a hearing on evidence to determine the merits of the action’ – a complete about turn!

‘The Trust’ wanted a THIRD bite at the cherry, and as if that wasn’t crazy enough of itself, at ‘close of business’ on the Friday preceding the preliminary hearing, the Trust’s solicitors lodged an incidental application for dismissal WITH EXPENSES TO BE AWARDED TO THE TRUST!!

Mr Gallacher, they alleged, had ‘acted dishonestly or with gross negligence’, but they failed to specify what he was supposed to have done wrong, and even better, Mr. Gallacher had ‘CAUSED THE PURSUER TO INCUR COSTS PURSUING AN INCOMPETENT ACTION’.

When the Trustee discharged Jim Gallacher from his Trust Deed on 5th August 2015, he confirmed that the latter had ‘FULFILLED ALL OF HIS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TRUST DEED’,

Mr Forsyth was unable to establish that his client owed the Trust a brass farthing but arrogant pig-headed TOADMEISTER Robinson was determined to save face – and to Hell with the consequences for the Trust!

In ‘failing to disclose his Trust Deed’ to the Trust – A NON-CREDITOR, Jim Gallacher had, he claimed, FORCED the Trust to raise a court action against himself!

 

The TOADMEISTER had apparently lost a grip on reality, but the Trust’s solicitors continued to take instructions in good faith from the man who boasted of having ‘full delegated authority’.

Were Robinson’s views shared by fellow committee members? They most certainly were not those of a membership which had never been consulted on G.M.S.T. v Gallacher.

MR. GALLACHER’S SOLICITOR WAS DETERMINED TO FIND OUT!