Attorney General Retires On Grounds Of Ill Health

[vee_dub]

9 hours 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.

Under the cosh unfairly? Jerry Carter? 

The fact that he is still allowed to practise as an advocate shows everything that is wrong with the Isle of Man legal profession.

[newsnight]

11 hours 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!

 

 

In this regard only we have a shared position, I too often have cause to wonder about the justice of ‘it’ all, if ‘it’ can be defined as causality, and effect, so far as the conduct of Government goes.

In your interesting post, you have used the word ‘apparently’ three times, ‘appears’ once, ‘murky’ once, ‘concocted’ once. You obviously have some axe to grind large or small regarding the Irving’s, which is manifestly apparent from the composition of your post. Be that as it may.

I am not qualified in the law and have ‘no dog in the fight’ to attempt to address the finer points of the judgment as handed down by the Deemster Corlett, but I do have observations to make about naïve businessmen, and failure to pay tax and national insurance by businesses on the Isle of Man.

If the contention is that the Irving’s are to be held culpable and subject to public vilification because they jointly or individually failed to keep proper accounts or pay on demand tax and NI then let’s have equanimity and make all in that category subject to equal treatment.

So, were the Directors of the Sefton Group who failed to pay tax and NI and who at various times claimed to Government that the company/ companies were balance sheet insolvent subject to public vilification?

They were not publicly vilified. As they described it later before a Committee of Inquiry, they were valiant business warriors struggling against the tyranny of Graham Ferguson Lacey, a man Allan Bell described as a lunatic running the madhouse.

They protested that they had done all they could to curb the excesses of GFL, in fact they hadn’t liked him or his business methods, and he in turn hadn’t much liked them, as they now told it.

The facts are they hadn’t paid the company’s bills as they had fallen due, and the Government was a substantial creditor, however, a political decision was made not to go to the Courts to obtain a winding-up order and liquidate the Sefton Group companies.

Then we have the matter of EuroManx. A company that kept no accounts or accurate financial records and was to all extents and purposes balance sheet insolvent almost, if not actually from the moment it was trading on the IOM.

Those Directors kept no accounts, didn’t pay the bills as they fell due and owed the Government substantial sums of money. Ex-Chief Minister Brown described EuroManx as a company he and his administration ‘had become very fond of’.

No application to the Courts to wind-up EuroManx by the Treasury or anybody else in the IOM Government was made. The final loss to the public purse is available to anyone wanting to know what that sum is by simple dint of effort to go and find it.

Were those Directors subject to public vilification? No they were not. What about moves to disqualify post the inevitable court order to wind-up the Company, no, nothing was done.

So who are the naïve businessmen? If being naïve is enough to visit dire consequences upon those culpable of it, then let the tumbrils roll and crowd them in, because on past events alone it would take more than one cart to carry them all

Deemster Corlett in his judgment wrote that he found Mr Harding’s conduct ‘inexplicable’ and he stated that so far as Mr Carter was concerned a possible explanation for his conduct in regards with Mr Harding in the ‘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’.

Some may say that is an accurate description of someone who could be fairly described as a ‘lickspittle’. With regards to other aspects of his conduct others might say that he was self-admittedly well out of his depth, and was simply incompetent to deal with the matters he was being paid to deal with.

If your face fits, is an expression often used to explain in short form the often inexplicable reasons why some are favoured and others are not. Why some are forgiven transgressions and others not, why some are made into mult-millionaires and others are laid low, why some companies are wound-up and others have multi-millions of public money provided to keep them afloat.

The Irving’s case has done this much, it has given the public an object lesson of what can happen when your face doesn’t fit and people take it upon themselves to act on that.

If we are to have things done in the IOM with a view to ‘justice’ , then let’s have justice applied equally.  We are a long way from that as I see it from where we are standing now.

As for Icarus, that is a much more apposite  description to be made about the IOM Government’s modus operandi than any small businessman’s ambition that I have seen on the Isle of Man.

[woolley]

@ Newsnight: Shrewd observations. If there is any further legal action could there be confidence in it?

[newsnight]

I supposed that having gone thus far in his comrehensive judgment, it might be difficult if not impossible for any Deemster to reinterpret his findings of fact and law in that case when the next stage of it comes to Court, if it does come to Court because the parties have not been able to arrive at an agreed settlement of it. We shall see.

 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

In your interesting post, you have used the word ‘apparently’ three times, ‘appears’ once, ‘murky’ once, ‘concocted’ once

I think I wouldn't be too direct with such facts on a public forum either, even if I knew those facts to be 100.1% accurate. 

PS I know absolutely nothing about this particular case other than what's on here.

[hissingsid]

Surely all legal firms have insurance?

 

[Parrot]

Was it not alleged some time back that " newsnight" was in fact Irving ?

[twinkle]

3 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Surely all legal firms have insurance?

 

But, have they? Is it obligatory?.

[gettafa]

29 minutes ago, Parrot said:

Was it not alleged some time back that " newsnight" was in fact Irving ?

Jerry Carter and Irving on the thread then? Could just let 'em thrash it out here and have Manx Forums as the jury.

[newsnight]

29 minutes ago, Parrot said:

Was it not alleged some time back that " newsnight" was in fact Irving ?

Who made that allegation, can you cite the post for us? I have never met the Irving people, are you just trolling for the attention?

[Parrot]

5 minutes ago, newsnight said:

37 minutes ago, Parrot said:

Was it not alleged some time back that " newsnight" was in fact Irving ?

Who made that allegation, can you cite the post for us? I have never met the Irving people, are you just trolling for the attention?

In order,............Don't know,....No,.......Really?..........No. Hope that helps.

[newsnight]

3 minutes ago, Parrot said:

In order,............Don't know,....No,.......Really?..........No. Hope that helps.

In reply, so you made that up to for your own mischief making. You don't know because it never happened. Reallly yes I have never met them, and it helped to confirm that you are trolling.

[Parrot]

Just now, newsnight said:

6 minutes ago, Parrot said:

In order,............Don't know,....No,.......Really?..........No. Hope that helps.

In reply, so you made that up to for your own mischief making. You don't know because it never happened. Reallly yes I have never met them, and it helped to confirm that you are trolling.

Whatever gets you through the night. Think what you like and I'll do the same.

PS, do a search eh ? I CBA

[integrity]

9 hours ago, newsnight said:

I supposed that having gone thus far in his comrehensive judgment, it might be difficult if not impossible for any Deemster to reinterpret his findings of fact and law in that case when the next stage of it comes to Court, if it does come to Court because the parties have not been able to arrive at an agreed settlement of it. We shall see.

 

 

[the stinking enigma]

.

Edited September 2, 2017 by the stinking enigma