The following is from email which arrived on Wednesday in Greenock Morton Trust member Mrs Mortonjag’s inbox. It was unsigned.
email@example.com Received Wednesday 3rd May 2017 09.01
As per the last newsletter, the ongoing small claims case was due to go to court in April after initially being delayed in February. However, this was delayed again until this month and will now take place on 9th May. We will send an update soon after this to inform members of the outcome and any actions arising from this.
Presumably the ‘we’ who ‘will send an update’ is Chairman ‘Plonker’ Feeney since he signed the last one. Nothing like transparency!
Young Feeney seems blissfully unaware of the critical change in circumstances since his ‘last newsletter’, although that’s not surprising, when not one Trust committee member has been anywhere near the dozen court hearings since the case was revived almost a year ago. ‘Plonker’ and the other Toadpoles continue to take instructions from ‘Fuhrer’ Robinson. despite his having resigned as Chairman eight months ago!
Mortonjag’s readers have now seen evidence in abundance to prove that the Greenock Morton Director and Wemyss Bay insolvency practitioner is a bully boy, a scamster, and a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. Feeney and Co. are responsible to the membership – not to Robinson. WHY HAVE THEY ABANDONED THAT RESPONSIBILITY?
HERE – YET AGAIN, IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER!
No ‘ongoing’ Small Claims case will ‘take place’ next Tuesday. G.M.S.T. v Gallacher will be dismissed (in Mr. Gallacher’s favour) and Sheriff Hamilton will decide on the remaining issue of expenses. The court case will then be over. The Trust will be pursued in a separate action if expenses awarded do not match expectations.
After Tuesday, it will be for the Trust membership to decide how to deal with several issues – in particular that of the vetoing of an S.G.M. properly convened last September.
Here is that ‘last newsletter’ to which ‘Plonker’ referred, with some helpful commentary from the real world!
Message Received: Oct 07 2016, 08:50 AM From: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Court case – Greenock Morton Supporters Society Limited v James Gallacher 7 October 2016
Dear fellow Morton Supporter,
At the recent AGM, the board gave notice that they proposed to hold a special general meeting to consider and discuss the position in regard to our small claims action against Mr Gallacher.
NOT TRUE! The meeting was proposed by Stuart Duncan and seconded by Eric Marshall. IT WAS A MEMBERSHIP DECISION.
Since then we have had legal advice that such a meeting would be inappropriate as we would be discussing matters relating to the case which are not really for the semi-public forum that a general meeting inevitably is In particular, there is the potential for everything discussed at the meeting to reach Mr Gallacher’s defence team and it is simply not in the best interests of the trust for that to happen.
It’s for the MEMBERSHIP to decide what’s in the Trust’s best interests. That was the whole point of the SGM in the first place, and WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ ABOUT WHICH PETER HARVEY OF BLAIR AND BRYDEN KNEW NOTHING ON 20TH DECEMBER LAST – ASKING ‘WHO IS FEENEY’?
Your board believe that that would be an inevitable consequence especially in the light of new members who joined after the AGM and who may potentially be sympathetic to Mr Gallacher or expelled member, Dr Ernest Newall who is leading Mr Gallacher’s defence.
NEW MEMBERS ARE UNWELCOME IF THEY ARE SYMPATHETIC TO A FELLOW TRUST MEMBER WHO IS LEGITIMATELY ATTEMPTING TO CLEAR HIS NAME! THAT TRULY IS THE STUFF OF THE THIRD REICH. SHAME ON YOU ALL! YOU HAVE ENTIRELY LOST SIGHT OF REALITY? HEIL NICKLER INDEED!
We are writing to appraise you of the background to the case, much of which has been discussed at previous meetings. As members will know, the Supporters Trust raised a small claims action against James Gallacher in the wake of the Stars of 79 dinner in 2009.
NONSENSE! The action was raised by an ill-advised committee which failed to examine available evidence and did not consult the membership. THE ‘TRUST’ HAS NEVER BEEN CONSULTED. The committee is NOT ‘The Trust’.
His “cause” was taken up by Dr Ernest Newall who at the time was also a member of the trust (since expelled) and we believe he organised funding for legal costs in relation to the defence.
Dr. Newall was expelled for criticism of the régime!
Jim Gallacher signed a trust deed for creditors in 2010 and this has had the effect, amongst other things, of putting the proceedings in hold until recently.
NICKLER’S BUSTED SCAM WAS WHY PROCEEDINGS WENT ‘ON HOLD’
An unsubstantiated claim was made by a FALSE creditor exactly as scamster Robinson planned. The moment that FALSE claim was binned by Mr Gallacher’s Trustee in dubious circumstances, G.M.S.T. v Gallacher died.
Jim Gallacher, Dr Newall and a number of others are claiming that they expect to win the case leaving the trust exposed to significant costs and figures of £20-30,000 have been bandied about.
The case is already won, as dismissal is unopposed by the pursuer’s solicitors. Submissions were made in February to allow Sheriff Hamilton to decide on the expenses issue. His Lordship decreed that there would be no hearing of evidence, after having been provided with proof that the Trustee had invalidated the G.M.S.T. claim after fully examining the Trust’s case.
In response to that: Your board believe and have legal advice that we have a solid case and that a successful defence of all elements by Mr Gallacher is extremely unlikely.
WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITOR?
Even if there were a successful defence of all elements, legal advice is that costs that might be awarded against us are nothing like the figures being mentioned. In a small claims action which this is, generally costs are limited to 10% of the sums sued for which would limit our exposure to here to around £230! A sheriff has some discretion here if he believes that either party has acted unreasonably but it is not believed that there is any way that the trust’s actions can be regarded in that way.
ONCE MORE, WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ WHICH DID NOT COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITOR.
Mr Gallacher’s solicitors have averred that this should not be a small claims action, rather an action of count, reckoning and payment. This has already been rejected once at an earlier hearing by the court but if they were successful this time, such an action has a higher scale of charges. That of course is a two way street and would mean potentially higher costs awarded against Mr Gallacher if he is found to owe the trust anything.
CONFUSION REIGNS! Mr Gallacher’s solicitors would not have sought a Summary Cause even had the case not been dropped by the pursuer. The Small Claims action was incompetent as raised and dismissal was being sought on that basis when the Trust Deed scam was incepted! Did the new ‘legal adviser’ get himself a wee bit mixed up there, CROAKETY CROAK?
Jim Gallacher through his solicitor is seeking to be indemnified against the costs of a successful defence of this action by the operation of clause 105 of our rules which essentially says that any officer of the society is to be indemnified losses unless as a result of his own dishonesty or gross negligence. He is also to be indemnified against the costs of any legal action in connection with his duties where it is successfully defended.
In this respect, legal advice is that clause 105 is unlikely to be enforceable both in terms of the facts of the case but also in terms of the enforceability of such a clause in Scots Law.
NOT ONLY DID THAT THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ FAIL TO COME FROM THE TRUST’S SOLICITORS, IT ALSO RUNS CONTRARY TO THAT OF ONE OF SCOTLAND’S MOST RESPECTED LEGAL FIRMS WHICH HAS ITS OWN DEDICATED INSOLVENCY DEPARTMENT!
Your board has considered the option of settling the case on an agreed basis before it calls in court on 2 November next. This would involve a complete and public exoneration of Mr Gallacher and a “substantial” payment towards his costs. At our AGM we made enquiries of Jim Gallacher who was present as to what “substantial” meant and had a response to the effect that his costs at the moment were approximately £20,000 and they were pursuing full recovery. It was for us to make an offer and it would be considered. We have come to the view that we cannot offer a sum which would be acceptable to both the trust and Jim Gallacher/Dr Newall.
How could you possibly have ‘come to that view’ without entertaining negotiation? Have another black cross NICKHEAD!
BULLY BOY, SCAMSTER, AND LIAR NICK ROBINSON IS DETERMINED NOT TO COMPLETELY AND PUBLICLY EXONERATE MR. GALLACHER, AS THAT WOULD DISCREDIT HIM THROUGHOUT INVERCLYDE.
HIs fellow committee members have four remaining days during which they may decide what is best for themselves and the Trust they were elected to serve.
This means that we expect to go to trial on the case which has been set down for 2 November next. It is our view that, in all the circumstances, this is our only realistic choice. We will, obviously keep members fully informed as matters progress.
ONCE AGAIN MORTONJAG CHALLENGES CHUCKLECHOPS AND HIS FELLOW TOADPOLES TO REVEAL THE SOURCE OF THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’.