G.M.S.T. v GALLACHER COMES BACK TO COURT.

 

On 9th May 2017, Sheriff David Hall dismissed G.M.S.T. v Gallacher on the basis of an unopposed incidental application. Jim was victorious in the action.  In layman’s terms, the Trust ‘threw in the towel’ after Jim’s Trustee’s invalidated the Greenock Morton Supporters Trust’s claim.

Jim’s victory was overshadowed by Sheriff Hall’s failure to award expenses, having been provided with false and deliberately misleading statements in the pursuer’s submission. That matter is presently under investigation, and Mortonjag will update his readership as events unfold.

Thirteen months ago, shortly after Trustee Iain Forsyth had finally been forced to invalidate the G.M.S.T.’s legally incompetent claim Jim sought to bring the matter back to court, and insisted on funding the ‘last leg’ out of his own pocket. 

He had been provided with unlimited funding by an independent third party who sought no financial recompense – only that justice be done and be seen to have been done – but unlike his ‘backer’, Jim is not wealthy. He was willing to spend a few hundred pounds to have his name finally cleared in court, but he did NOT expect to end up £3,000 out of pocket because Nick Robinson refused to accept defeat and was determined to ‘save face’ within the Morton community.

It ought to have been a formality to recall the sisted court action for a decree in Jim’s favour. His solicitor also argued that he was entitled to full expenses under Rule 105 of the Trust constitution, which indemnifies Trust officers against the costs of successfully defending any action brought against them in relation to the execution of their duties.  

JIM GALLACHER WAS ENTITLED TO BE INDEMNIFIED. HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG AND THAT HAD BEEN PROVEN.

THAT HE WAS FORCED TO INCUR DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS IN ORDER TO DEFEND HIMSELF WAS NOT OF HIS CHOOSING.

When Andrew Upton of Harper Macleod LL.P. instructed a local lawyer to represent Jim in court, he stated:

 ‘The writer has discussed this briefly with the solicitor for the pursuer (Mr. Harvey)’,

followed by 

‘We do not understand the pursuer to be opposing dismissal of the action’,

and, 

‘It has been suggested that the court will not have time to deal with the opposed part of the incidental application on Monday. As such it is a joint motion to fix a hearing on the incidental application on a date that the court has more time.’

The incidental application was in two parts. Firstly the defender was seeking dismissal ON THE BASIS THAT THE TRUST’S CLAIM HAD FAILED. Mr. Harvey appeared to be unopposed to dismissal.

Secondly the defender was seeking expenses on the basis of Rule 105 of the Trust constitution.  THAT WAS ‘THE OPPOSED PART’, AND MR. HARVEY APPEARED TO HAVE AGREED WITH ANDREW UPTON THAT THEY JOINTLY APPLY FOR A FURTHER HEARING – PURELY TO THRASH OUT THE EXPENSES ISSUE.

It therefore came as a surprise when the goalposts were moved in court and the Trust’s solicitor – unusually Ms. Carrick – ‘insisted on a proof at large to determine the merits of the action’.’

FotoFlexer_Photo

THE ACTION HAD NO ‘MERITS’, HAVING COLLAPSED THE MOMENT THE TRUSTEE INVALIDATED THE G.M.S.T.’S FLAWED CLAIM!

Sheriff Turnbull was not ‘up to speed’ though. Just like Sheriff Hall on 9th May, he had been ‘thrown in at the deep end’ with no prior knowledge of the case, and failed to grasp that (on a prior court direction) the Trustee’s decision precluded further action. He continued the case until 27th June for a preliminary diet, with a view to a full hearing of evidence.

The tacit agreement between Peter Harvey and Andrew Upton had been breached. Perhaps Ms. Carrick herself was ‘not up to speed’, but whatever the reason, Sheriff Turnbull had decided to hear evidence, and the Sheriff must be obeyed!

Andrew Upton confirmed with Mortonjag that funding was still in place for a full hearing. Indeed it was, and if that was what Nick Robinson wanted, that was what he would get – apparent collusion to defraud creditors, proven perjury, false information on due diligence – and MUCH more!!

On Friday 24th June, another offering from Robinson’s ‘Dirty tricks department’.

Virtually at close of business, Andrew Upton received a faxed copy of an incidental application.

Piniccio, the lying accountant, was STILL accusing Jim Gallacher of wrongdoing in his organisation of the ‘Stars’ event.  

FotoFlexer_Photo

That was plainly crazy, and they had failed to distinguish Rule 104 from Rule 105. This was even CRAZIER:

FotoFlexer_Photo

Yet again, liar Robinson was asserting that in failing to declare a disputed claim against him by a non-creditor Jim Gallacher contravened the terms of his Trust Deed. Even his bean counting ‘buddy’ Fiddler Forsyth had agreed at the start that there was no debt and later that Jim had fulfilled all of his obligations!

Perhaps craziest of all is that Sheriff Hall was taken in by Robinson’s deceit.

That remains critical. Nick Robinson deliberately deceived the court regarding the circumstances of his ‘due diligence’ prior to raising the action. In so doing he attempted to pervert the course of justice. That matter is the subject of ongoing investigation.

Robinson concluded that the Trust was agreeable to dismissal only if expenses were awarded AGAINST Jim Gallacher because of his unreasonable behaviour. That  was preposterous when his action had already failed on the strength of a busted Trust Deed scam!

On Monday 27th, the hearing was continued to allow Mr. Upton to consider the application, and he responded thus:

FotoFlexer_Photo

FotoFlexer_Photo

Back in court, the pursuer was again, unusually, represented by Ms. Carrick. When asked if the pursuer wished to continue the application for dismissal on Mr Gallacher’s unreasonable behaviour, she responded that in view of Mr. Upton’s rebuttal, ‘they had no choice’ but to proceed to proof, and a date was set for November 2016. 

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

 

More on the legalities, and Robinson’s perceived criminality later folks!

NEXT TIME. MORTONJAG SENDS AN EMAIL TO ‘SUGAR SHED’ SELLAR!