Report comment

Obviously a slow week for me as I read the SDT decision and the original High Court appeal by Mr Justice Jay (which is fantastic read--Jay s a brilliant writer).

This is a very sad case and I have to say it stressed me a bit. One was a commercial partner and solicitor for 30 years, the other a junior with 4 years PQE obviously "supervised" (read: directed) by the partner.

The bottom line is, as per Jay's appeal, that there is plenty of evidence that the first solicitor lied and did so repeatedly to mislead the court. He lied about the subject evading service, about a risk of dissipation of assets (both in an affidavit), about there being no third party funder and, worst, gave stupid answers to the SDT. He also contrived to cover up his lies by blaming a foreign lawyer.

The second solicitor lied in court and in an affidavit.

I feel personally for them as I think they made the wrong judgment calls and are suffering extremely as a result. However, I can't help but think how many times such freezing orders were obtained without notice on the back of bogus assertions made by a partner at a prestigious firm.

Make no mistake, the only reason why these solicitors were caught was because they took on a multimillionaire who threw money at the case.

The key quote from Jay J is as follows:

"159, It is clear to me that in the thirty-two minute period between these key emails the seeds of disaster were sown, and the professional careers of Messrs Shaw and Turnbull were placed in clear jeopardy. I appreciate that this was quite late in the evening and that it had been a long day, but at the very least we see evidence here of serious errors of judgment. On the face of things the Appellants' instincts were to cover their own backs rather than to tell the Court the truth and apologise. Had they done so the discharge hearing might have been resolved more rapidly in Mr Logue's favour – with all the concomitant grief in relation to Stewart Law's CFA and the potential exposure of Candy/CPC to an application under s.51 – but these were or ought to have been collateral considerations."