censorship Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I do believe that we still have an acting AG as well. Tim Green, Barrister, is appointed in connection with the on-going VAT fraud case. Not sure quite why John Quinn cannot deal with this...... It is a puzzle. However, I was delighted to hear the IOM Law Society so wholeheartedly support the appointment of our new Attorney General. Glad to hear there are no concerns among that august body regarding the successful candidate's suitability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 A cupboard - well more like a safe actually - full of skeletons. See, when you hold the keys there should be no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 A cupboard - well more like a safe actually - full of skeletons. See, when you hold the keys there should be no problem. I'm sure the Law Society has never had any negative opinions of the shiny new AG have they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 I see there is a head line in the paper about a major court victory for the Irvings. Has anyone read about it? Could be huge implications for someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 https://www.judgments.im/content/J1928.htm Conclusion 254.For the reasons set out in detail in this judgment I have therefore concluded that the Defendants did act negligently and in breach of contract as alleged in paragraphs 17.3, 17.4, 17.5, 17.6 and 17.7 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, but not otherwise as set out in paragraph 17. 255.Also that the Defendants were in further breach of contract and were negligent as alleged in paragraphs 21.6 and 21.8, but not otherwise as alleged in paragraph 21. 256.I conclude that the Defendants did owe a duty of care in tort to the Claimants in their personal capacity as alleged in paragraph 10 and that the breaches of contract and negligence which I have found were capable of causing at least one of the types of personal loss to the Claimants as set out in paragraph 23 and that it is just that liability be imposed upon them. 257.The Claimants are not guilty of contributory negligence as alleged in the Re-Amended Defence. 258.Issues of causation and quantum must now be addressed by the parties and, if they cannot reach agreement, further directions must be given to bring this case to a conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 http://www.iomonline.co.im/article.cfm?id=35700&headline=Irvings celebrate court victory§ionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 Irvings celebrate court victory Thursday, 31 August 2017 By by Adrian Darbyshire adrian.darbyshire@iomtoday.co.im Twitter:@iomAdrian in Business Jonathan Irving Retired businessman Jonathan Irving and his son Jamie have won a major court victory over the winding up of their Street Heritage company seven years ago. In a High Court judgment, Deemster Corlett ruled that Street Heritage’s advocate Jerry Carter had been negligent by not turning up in time for the winding up hearing that took place on February 24, 2010. Mr Irving said he and his son had now estabilished liabiility in their multi-million pound negligence claim. He said: ’We brought this claim at our own cost and risk at their own cost and risk for the joint benefit of the creditors of Street Heritage Ltd. ’As a family, at long last we feel vindicated and hope that we can now draw a line under this and move on.’ In his judgment, Deemster Corlett concluded it would have been ’very probable that the court would have agreed to adjourn the case, thereby giving the company time to attempt to put together a rescue package’. That rescue package would have been based upon a sale of land in Peel and promises of cash to pay off a tax debt totalling £182,929. Mr Irving told the High Court that publicity from the winding-up order had tainted their other businesses which were ’damned by association’. Ticket sales for the 2010 Bay Festival, which the Irvings were organising through a separate company, started to dry up and it went on to make a loss. For his part, Mr Carter told the court he believed that the Irvings’ financial empire was due to collapse in any event as Street Heritage was ’clearly insolvent’ at the time of the presentation of the winding-up petition, with other creditors ’waiting in the wings’. He said he was told by the Irvings that the hearing was at 10am but by the time he had arrived at 9.40am, the case had already been dealt with. Deemster Corlett said: ’The company and the Irvings therefore lost the chance of staving off the winding-up order.’ He concluded that Mr Carter acted negligently and was in breach of contract in not ensuring he knew the correct time for the hearing and not bringing the Deemster back into court to rescind the winding-up order. He found the Irvings were not guilty of contributing to the situation and that Mr Carter’s breach of duty and contract were capable of causing the type of losses alleged by the Irvings, including those incurred in the 2010 Bay Music Festival. The judgment does not deal with any award of damages. l More on this story in next week’s Examiner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 He's not having a good time of late is our Mr Carter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaStar Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, Neil Down said: He's not having a good time of late is our Mr Carter Typical IOM face saving exercise in the face of public embarrassment at having dirty laundry aired in public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 Establishing that JC didn't turn up on time isn't really a victory though. He didn't turn up on time and that is well documented. What will be more difficult is proving that there were losses. If the whole shebang was "hopelessly insolvent" then nothing has been lost. Long way to go yet methinks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 9.30 does sound a bit early for Jerry 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 30 minutes ago, piebaps said: Establishing that JC didn't turn up on time isn't really a victory though. He didn't turn up on time and that is well documented. What will be more difficult is proving that there were losses. If the whole shebang was "hopelessly insolvent" then nothing has been lost. Long way to go yet methinks. Correct. Typical IOM Newspapers screaming headline that borders on misrepresenting the reality. Pyrrhic victory in all probability. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinkle Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 how many times is a lawyer allowed to suffer gross negligency charges before they are defrocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 How many lives does Dr Who have? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 2 hours ago, piebaps said: Establishing that JC didn't turn up on time isn't really a victory though. He didn't turn up on time and that is well documented. What will be more difficult is proving that there were losses. If the whole shebang was "hopelessly insolvent" then nothing has been lost. Long way to go yet methinks. It'll not stop the Irvings trying to milk it though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted August 31, 2017 Share Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) To be fair they have a point which the judge clearly agrees with Neil Edited August 31, 2017 by notwell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.