Some Examples
David and William agreed to buy some properties together. William said he would acquire them in companies because that would be more tax efficient. But instead of doing so, William cheated and stole them by adjusting the share holdings. David consulted me. There was no alternative. David sued. The judge agreed with David and ordered all the properties and the shares to be transferred back to the proper ownership. David was also ordered to pay William damages and his costs.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Alan met John at a golf tournament. They agreed to set up a company, half each, to own golf courses. After ten successful years in business, John persuaded Alan to give him a few of Alan’s shares by making the false claim that the company needed further capital which John said he would provide. (Alan had worked for the company for almost no wages and could not put up more capital). In fact the company did not need more capital and John provided none. But, once he held a majority of the shares, he did dismiss Alan and Alan’s family from the company. John then installed himself his own family. Alan asked me for advice. He had no choice. He sued John to get back his shares, which the judge awarded him. This meant that Alan and John were equal again. But the judge went further. He ordered that each of them might bid for the shares of the other. He also ordered John to pay Alan’s costs. With the help of a cousin, Alan was able to outbid John and the shares changed hands. Alan and his cousin became fellow owners and directors in the golfing company and now run it as a happy and successful business.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Mark carried out cabling work for Oliver. Oliver refused to pay him, falsely pretending that Mark had made a bad job of his work. Mark consulted me. I advised him to sue. Faced with the prospect of losing, Oliver settled with Mark and paid his costs.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Katie already had 6 points on her driving licence when she was recorded by a police camera, apparently speeding, as she drove her family to the country for the weekend. Some months later she received a summons before the Magistrates, accusing her of failing to identify the driver and of speeding. Katie was facing the possibility of having 12 points on her licence and at least 6 months disqualification from driving. She instructed me. It became clear that Katie had not received a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence, which is a condition precedent to a conviction; and there were some features of the photograph taken by the police camera which caused concern. After a full hearing before the Magistrates, Katie was acquitted and her costs were ordered to be paid out of public funds. Within a few months the first 3 of her original 6 points expired. Katie now has just 3 points on her licence.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
John’s company applied paint treatments to the manufactured products of its customer, Victory P, which then refused to pay, though without good reason. John consulted me. He feared Victory P would be difficult. This was no time to be soft. On behalf of John’s company I immediately issued High Court proceedings and made it clear to Victory P that I would take urgent steps towards judgment and enforcement. Victory P knew the game was up and paid John’s company in full, with costs.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Jake’s company made machinery for use in the construction industry. His landlord, Robert, an angry and unreasonable man, was constantly complaining of minor breaches of his lease. John consulted me. I advised him that his best step was to find other premises and get away from the dreadful Robert. However, Jake was worried his specialist workforce would not travel to another location and so he stayed put. That was a mistake. After a time, Robert brought proceedings for forfeiture of the lease, based up the many minor complaints he had made. Robert could prove the minor breaches, but Jake persuaded the judge that, despite those breaches, he should be relieved from forfeiture of his lease, and be allowed to continue. Nevertheless, these were expensive proceedings for Jake, who would have been better off accepting the initial advice to find another location for his business. Jake realised that he had to go anyway, and the business has since moved to another location.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Martin had a holiday cottage with a barn in ten acres in the countryside. He sold the barn to Linda for her to convert to a house. Linda duly obtained planning permission to convert the barn into a house, but she was greedy. Not only did she build a house which was much bigger than her planning permission allowed, but she also extended the property partly over a field still belonging to Martin. Then, in the winter when Martin (who lived 100 miles away) could be relied on not to visit, she took two other steps calculated to cause upset. On a raised part of Martin’s field, she erected a large oil tank. Then she built a garage right on the boundary between her house and Martin’s cottage, substantially obscuring Martin’s view over the surrounding countryside. Martin consulted me. Martin could probably do nothing about the garage, for it was a development on Linda’s land to which he had not objected (though there were some doubts about the probity of the local authority which had failed to tell him of that project). But he could and did take action in relation to the development of the house on his land. Linda refused all sensible negotiation. Martin had no choice but to sue. Even so, Linda waited until the day before the trial to settle with Martin. Then, because she had no choice, she agreed to pay him damages and his costs. Linda could have acted in a reasonable neighbourly way, but some people find that too much to contemplate.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Edward was a partner in a firm of solicitors, but he became unhappy with his lot. He thought he was not earning enough money, and certainly he did not have enough for his modestly comfortable lifestyle. Only the year before, the senior partner had retired and his partners had had to buy him out. Those partners could not readily raise capital to buy out Edward as well. Edward decided to bring matters to a head, and he asked the Law Society to appoint an arbitrator to decide the issues. I was appointed as arbitrator. Edward claimed he was entitled to retire and be paid out. His partners resisted and claimed he had made mistakes and damaged their practice by not looking after clients. Happily, as is usual in such matters, Edward and his former partners settled their differences between themselves, without the need for a hearing. They were wise to do so. They saved much in time, in cost and heartache by putting such a dispute behind them.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Linford had a dispute with his business partner Cranford. They were in the property business. They agreed to separate their business interests, as to both the shares which they held in businesses and the large sums of money which they owed to their bankers. Linford went to his solicitor, Keith, told him of the settlement and asked for his advice. What the solicitor should have done was to advise that the agreement be written down and signed by both parties as soon as possible, but he failed to do so. Shortly afterwards, Cranford broke the agreement and started stealing the various properties. But Cranford was not worth much money. Linford consulted me and I advised him to sue his solicitor, who had let him down so badly. After a strong initial defence, the insurance company indemnifying Keith, the solicitor, came to recognise that Keith was at some risk. At a mediation meeting, Keith agreed to pay heavy damages and costs.