Attorney General Retires On Grounds Of Ill Health

[quilp]

Eh? 

[quilp]

Ffs..!

[thebees]

The very cheek of it. 

[Non-Believer]

7 hours ago, newsnight said:

171.He had a very good working relationship with Mr Goodwin and indeed had acted for him in his personal capacity. Perhaps Mr Carter ought to have perceived a conflict of interest because it seems to me that Mr Carter's conduct of the case is characterised by his willingness to bend over backwards to be fair to the Government's arguments rather than to be a fearless advocate for his own client.

 

172.I consider that he was too forgiving of Mr Harding whose inexplicable conduct (as it seems to me) on 24th February 2010 began the regrettable chain of events. Mr Carter's client's interests ought to have come first.

 

173.To some extent he sat in judgment on the conduct of the Irvings and took the view that in the end "the right thing has happened". It is obvious that this is not the role of an advocate in civil litigation of this type. Provided he did not mislead the court or otherwise behave unethically, it was his job to put his clients' case as forcefully as possible to the court. It was the court's job to determine whether SHL should be wound up and not that of Mr Goodwin, Mr Harding or Mr Carter. There was in my view most definitely an argument to be put on SHL's behalf. The matter was by no means as clear cut as Mr Carter appears to think that it was

246.As for the allegation that the Claimants were contributorily negligent in failing to produce evidence of the solvency of SHL in order to enable an appeal or a set aside application to proceed, it seems to me that the issue of the alleged solvency of SHL is not relevant to the Claimants' causes of action. Their case it seems to me is founded on their loss of a chance of surviving the winding-up proceedings by reason of Mr Carter's breach of duty. Their case is that they were in the process of and may well have obtained alternative financing which would have enabled them to defend the petition, based as it was on an undisputed income tax debt of £182,929.98. Their near certainty of obtaining an adjournment of the hearing and their chance of obtaining a dismissal of the petition were lost by reason of Mr Carter's negligence. "Solvency" is not a word which appears in the winding-up petition or in sections 162 or 163 of the Companies Act 1931. The only live issue on the petition was whether SHL was unable to pay the income tax debt and arguably also the debts of the other Government creditors who appeared at the hearing. Despite the petition having been advertised on 26th and 28th January 2010 no other creditors appeared at that hearing. The damage occurred on the making of the winding-up order and the failure immediately to ensure that Deemster Doyle was appraised of the true position so that he could make an order based on correct information.

247.On the totality of the evidence now before me, I can well see an argument (albeit with the benefit of hindsight) that ultimately SHL will have been wound up at some unknown date after the 24th February 2010. I take into account Mr Irving's admission during the course of R v Harding that SHL was unable to pay its debts at the material time. However, it is impossible to know how matters might have turned out. It is clear from Mr Carter's pleaded case and his own evidence that on 24th February 2010 no one knew the accurate financial position of SHL. There was a distinct possibility that SHL would have survived and there was most certainly an arguable case to be put to Deemster Doyle based on the way in which the Petition was pleaded. The Government's case was that SHL was "unable to pay its debts". The burden of proving this was on the Petitioner. Despite Mr Irving's admission made in other proceedings, the issue is often not a straightforward one. Inability to pay debts is defined or "deemed" by section 163 of the Companies Act 1931 and it is clear from the Petition that reliance was placed solely on the service of a demand for payment of the tax debt and a failure to pay it within three weeks (section 163(1)(1)). Reliance was not placed on section 163(1)(3) which refers to the court being satisfied that the company is unable to pay its debts and in determining that issue, the court "shall take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company". Clearly that subsection requires a wider examination of the company's financial position.

248.The main point surely is that the Claimants were deprived of the chance of SHL surviving and this is something which can properly form the basis of a claim for damages.

 

This is risible. Advocate engaged (and paid) by client "appears" to have previously formed the opinion that their client is onto a loser to the degree that they don't observe the Court timing and doesn't apply due diligence in attending?

FFS. Good luck with the reputation. Not that it'll come to anything with the governance of IoM Law circles.

[WTF]

Any more family members to chuck under the bus before getting a paltry fine? 

Edited September 1, 2017 by WTF

[censorship]

12 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

FFS. Good luck with the reputation. Not that it'll come to anything with the governance of IoM Law circles.

Of course it won't. Questionable professional practices are no bar to climbing the greasy pole right to the very top, as we'd all know if someone with the full story decided to recount a certain senior legal officer's pathway to success.

[gettafa]

✓

[John Wright]

This is not a disciplinary case. This is a claim for damages. I understand that the Irvings complaint to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal was dealt with some time ago.

[Mac the Knife]

I have some sympathy with Jerry Carter, although I do not believe him to be the best advocate and it appears that he was apparently deficient in his duties here, one needs however to read the full report to understand the whole murky episode.

Jonathan Irving was apparently a "naive". buisnessman after some 30 years plus in business, so naive that he apparently provided Mr Gilbey with figures which were according to the report concocted to get a £70K loan. In addition, money was taken from the Festival  company to subsidise SHL, which by itself, in a potential insolvency of SHL would have probably been deemed illegal.

SHL failed to pay employees tax and NI to a very substantial sum, which was why the Manx government were pursuing the debts of SHL The Manx Government had also arrested his own personal house in respect of tax debts, I believe in respect of both personal tax debts and possibly in connection with SHL.

Was Jerry Carter that wrong therefore in believing the whole Irvings empire was insolvent?

I supect that as a result of this judgement there may be a substantial claim against Jerry  Carter's firm for damages. We shall have to see what happens, but I wonder about the justice of it all.

There is no doubt that Jonathan Irving helped develop a somewhat depressed Peel, through some of his property developments, but equally sad for all those parties involved who then lost out through the collapse of his empire, especially any creditors or employees.

Perhaps like Icarus he flew to close to the Sun and believed in his own infallibility!

 

 

[Neil Down]

1 minute ago, Mac the Knife said:

I have some sympathy with Jerry Carter, although I do not believe him to be the best advocate and it appears that he was apparently deficient in his duties here, one needs however to read the full report to understand the whole murky episode.

Jonathan Irving was apparently a "naive". buisnessman after some 30 years plus in business, so naive that he apparently provided Mr Gilbey with figures which were according to the report concocted to get a £70K loan. In addition, money was taken from the Festival  company to subsidise SHL, which by itself, in a potential insolvency of SHL would have probably been deemed illegal.

SHL failed to pay employees tax and NI to a very substantial sum, which was why the Manx government were pursuing the debts of SHL The Manx Government had also arrested his own personal house in respect of tax debts, I believe in respect of both personal tax debts and possibly in connection with SHL.

Was Jerry Carter that wrong therefore in believing the whole Irvings empire was insolvent?

I supect that as a result of this judgement there may be a substantial claim against Jerry  Carter's firm for damages. We shall have to see what happens, but I wonder about the justice of it all.

There is no doubt that Jonathan Irving helped develop a somewhat depressed Peel, through some of his property developments, but equally sad for all those parties involved who then lost out through the collapse of his empire, especially any creditors or employees.

Perhaps like Icarus he flew to close to the Sun and believed in his own infallibility!

 

 

thanks for the update Jerry

[Mac the Knife]

Neil,

No not Jerry, if you bothered to study my profile most unlikely to be Jerry.

Do not leap to uneducated assumptions

Jerry actually represented me or companies in which I was involved in the past withsadly not great distinction!

I feel however someone who is under the "cosh" to my mind unfairly, at least deserves to have his side of the case put forward, even though he has not asked me to do so and I have not spoken to Jerry for some five years.

Before jumpimg to such hasty conclusions, perhaps study the full transcript of the judgement.

[Neil Down]

5 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

Neil,

No not Jerry, if you bothered to study my profile most unlikely to be Jerry.

Do not leap to uneducated assumptions

Jerry actually represented me or companies in which I was involved in the past withsadly not great distinction!

I feel however someone who is under the "cosh" to my mind unfairly, at least deserves to have his side of the case put forward, even though he has not asked me to do so and I have not spoken to Jerry for some five years.

Before jumpimg to such hasty conclusions, perhaps study the full transcript of the judgement.

Okay...thanks for the update Jerry

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

This is not a disciplinary case. This is a claim for damages. I understand that the Irvings complaint to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal was dealt with some time ago.

Presumably the Irvings' complaint was dismissed as there is no record of a related conviction on the ADT website.  The only relevant finding relating to Carter is the one concerning his pilfering niece, though the finding against Harding from 2010 relating to this case is there.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Roger Mexico
Edited to add link.

[woolley]

The Irvings have had a terrible press from some quarters. They never did me any harm. If people were owed money of course I understand that and don't seek to minimise it. I only came across them indirectly in business, but I will say that there are many people who back then had a lot of time for some of the things they tried to do, namely the developments in Peel and the pop festivals. If there was some naivety in the business dealings as alleged, then they wouldn't be the first and it takes two to make a deal after all.

If you try to make something positive happen and it goes pear shaped you will soon find that those who were cheering you on and praising your great ideas, even those in high places, will very quickly take a swift step back out of the flak so as not to be tainted by association and emerge among your harshest critics.

[Tarne]

Indeed Woolley. Often those that would never be your customers in the first place are the ones cheering for your demise, whilst those left in the lurch are now stuffed.