PP 132/06 REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF W E & D A MEGSON

Transcription

1 PP 132/06 REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF W E & D A MEGSON

2 REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF W E & D A MEGSON At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 21 st April 2004 it was resolved That a Committee of three members be appointed to investigate the two Petitions for Redress of Grievance of Wendy Elizabeth Megson and David Andrew Megson, regarding abuse of the Legal Aid Fund and the withholding of information and maladministration by advocates and Government officials, which were presented at St John s on 5 July 2002, with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 th of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and to report with recommendations Mrs A V Craine MHK (Ramsey) Chairman/Caairliagh Mr P Karran MHK (Onchan) Mr A J Earnshaw MHK (Onchan) The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a Committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel , Fax ) or may be consulted at All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Bucks Road, Douglas IM1 3PW

3 To: The Honourable Noel Q Cringle MLC, President of Tynwald, and the Honourable Members of the Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF W E & D A MEGSON PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Five Petitions for Redress of Grievance were presented on behalf of Wendy Elizabeth Megson and David Andrew Megson ( the Petitioners ) in accordance with Standing Order 6.7(3) at the sitting of Tynwald Court at St John s on 5 th July These Petitions related to (a) alleged abuse of the Legal Aid Fund and inconsistency relating to the funding of solicitors, together with the failure of those regulators in public office to advise of the complaints procedure available to address such grievances. (b) alleged ineffectiveness of the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal and the regulatory authorities of the legal services on the Isle of Man and the regulatory and disciplinary powers of the Isle of Man Law Society. 1

4 (c) the functions of the Small Claims Court with particular reference to the awarding of costs and the responsibility and duty of care by Court officials. (d) the legal procedure, particularly conflict of interest and withholding information, to ensure fair and proper justice in line with human rights, civil liberties and natural justice. (e) alleged maladministration in Government and the establishment of an independent political ombudsman. Copies of all five Petitions are at Appendix A 1.2 At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 21 st April 2004 it was resolved That a Committee of three members be appointed to investigate the two Petitions for Redress of Grievance of Wendy Elizabeth Megson and David Andrew Megson, regarding abuse of the Legal Aid Fund and the withholding of information and maladministration by advocates and Government officials, which were presented at St John s on 5th July 2002, with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 and to report with recommendations. Mr Karran 1.3 After a ballot Mrs Craine, Mr Earnshaw and Mr Karran were elected to be the Committee. At the first meeting Mrs Craine was elected as Chairman. 1.4 Your Committee met on thirteen occasions. PART 2 THE PETITIONS 2.1 The Petitions emanated from differences between Mr D A and Mrs W E Megson, and Mr D and Mrs T Cole, in connection with a Company 2

5 (Manx Auto Rescue Club Ltd) established in Matters relating to those differences (referred to by the Petitioners as the main event ) are matters subject to litigation or possible criminal investigation and as such are outwith the scope of your Committee. We set out at Part 4 what we consider to be the relevant background to the Motion and the remit of the Committee. A fuller account of activity and legal action is included at Appendix B to this Report and it is suggested that the reader at this point may wish to refer to this account to gain an understanding of the circumstances. 2.2 The Petition referred to at 1.1(e) was found not to be in order by the Standing Orders Committee. 2.3 Your Committee considered that the two Petitions referred to in the Motion were, firstly, described at 1.1(a) A resolution of Tynwald be to examine the abuse of the Legal Aid fund and the inconsistency relating to funding of solicitors together with the failure of those regulators in Public Office to advise us of the complaints procedure available to address such grievances. (hereinafter referred to as the First Petition) and, secondly, described at 1.1(d), A resolution of Tynwald be granted to consider the main event and its consequences and how we can be put back into the position we were in prior to the maladministration caused by the conflict of interest and the withholding of information thereby obstructing access to fair and proper justice in line with our human rights, civil liberties and principles of natural justice. (hereinafter referred to as the Second Petition). 3

6 PART 3 STRATEGY 3.1 Your Committee agreed to (a) invite written evidence from the Petitioners to establish details of the grievances (b) (c) (d) request comments on the Petitions from the Isle of Man Law Society examine the procedures for Legal Aid consider appropriate remedies in light of evidence and comment received. 3.2 Written evidence was received from the Petitioners and the Isle of Man Law Society. It was clear from that evidence that litigation had been instigated in respect of the main event (being matters arising from the termination of the Company) and certain issues had been referred to the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. 3.3 Further correspondence was received from General Registry concerning the procedures for the Legal Aid Scheme and cases involving legal aid certificates granted in respect of the Petitioners. 3.4 The written evidence is substantial and is available for inspection in the Tynwald Library. 4

7 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 There follows a resume of the circumstances relating to the two Petitions (a) The Manx Auto Rescue Club (the Company) was formed in 1991 of which the Directors were Mr Megson and Mr Cole, the Secretary being Mrs Cole. (b) In 1997 Mr and Mrs Cole sold their interest in the Company to the Megsons, and Mr Megson assumed day to day responsibility for the Company. (c) In 1997 Mann & Partners were engaged by the Petitioners to act in respect of a dispute with Mr. Cole over the terms of the sale of the business and to draft Heads of Agreement over settlement for Mr Coles withdrawal from the Company. (d) In October 1997, a Bill of Costs was issued by Mann & Partners ( 4406). The Petitioners took issue with those costs and the advice provided. (e) In March 1999 Mann & Partners issued a summons against the Petitioners for costs ( 8966, being the balance of costs less monies paid on account). (f) In March 1999 the Petitioners complained to the IOM Law Society and requested an assessment of the costs. Those costs were assessed under provisions of the Advocates (Law Society Assessment of Fees) regulations 1998, and were subsequently reduced on assessment to

8 (g) In April 1999 the Petitioners engaged Mr I Corbridge to investigate those costs. A Consent Order (an order of the Court used in the conduct of litigation to settle a litigious matter) was agreed for (h) The Petitioners were unhappy with Mr Corbridge s costs. See Appendix B section 9 (i) In 2000, Mann & Partners obtained judgment against the Petitioners for 3601 being the balance of the assessment and monies paid on account. (j) In November 2000 the Petitioners approached the IOM Law Society suggesting that Mann & Partners relinquish any claim above monies already paid and that Mr Corbridge s costs be assessed and his fees be the responsibility of the IOM Law Society. (k) In 2001, Mr J Wright was engaged by the Petitioners to act for them. (l) Later, Mr W Parmak, an English Barrister, was engaged by the Petitioners to act for them under a legal aid certificate. See Appendix B section 16 6

9 PART 5 GENERAL FINDINGS The First Petition 5.1 The First Petition alleges abuse of the Legal Aid fund, and inconsistency relating to funding of solicitors, and failure of those regulators in public office to advise of complaints procedures. Abuse of the Legal Aid Fund 5.2 Your Committee considers that the definition of the word abuse as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, is the improper use of something or unjust or corrupt practice. 5.3 The procedures and criteria concerning civil legal aid are governed by the Legal Aid Act 1986 and Regulations made thereunder. Legal Aid is not available to corporate bodies. For an individual to take advantage of the benefits of the legal aid scheme, a list of Advocates prepared to undertake legal aid work (Legal Aid Panel of Advocates) is available; the applicant may approach their choice of Advocate from that list; application forms for civil legal aid are available from Advocates who will assist with completion of the form and will submit the application to the Civil Legal Aid Office. 7

10 5.4 There is a sliding scale of financial assistance available, based upon the applicant s level of disposable income. The contribution payable by an applicant ranges from nothing, for those with no disposable income, to 75% of the total cost (or 2000 whichever is the lesser) for those with a disposable income of between 7000 and An applicant with a disposable income in excess of 8000 is ineligible for assistance. Effectively, no eligible applicant would be required to contribute more than 2000 in any case. 5.5 The account submitted by the Advocate is subject to assessment by the Legal Aid Office, at rates governed by regulation (Criminal Legal Aid Order), currently 104 per hour for a Senior Advocate ( 85 for a Junior Advocate), and scope of work agreed with the Legal Aid Office. 5.6 The Petitioners were successful in their applications and were granted several certificates for civil legal aid over a period. 5.7 Your Committee is satisfied that the Legal Aid system is available to anyone eligible for assistance and that Advocates fees are governed by regulation and monitored by the Legal Aid office. Having researched the substantial amount of written evidence provided, we found no evidence to support the allegation of abuse of the system, whether it be interpreted as improper use, or unjust or corrupt practice. 5.8 In the interest of addressing the Petitioners concerns, we attempted to investigate further but those efforts were thwarted as certain matters pertaining to relevant civil legal aid certificates were sub judice. Furthermore, consents of parties concerned in those matters are required under section 14 of the Legal Aid Act 1986 and certain consents, including those of the Petitioners, were either not given or were outstanding. See Appendix C 8

11 Inconsistency relating to funding of solicitors 5.9 The Petition alleges inconsistency relating to funding. This allegation comes about as a result of costs charged by Mann & Partners which we have shown at para 4.1 (e). Those costs were reassessed under the Advocates (Law Society Assessment of Fees) Regulations 1998 and subsequently reduced by an appointed Assessor. A copy of the Assessment is attached at Appendix D 5.10 Your Committee is aware that there was a delay from the initial application by the Petitioners for legal aid as assistance is available only to individuals, and not Companies. However, the Petitioners did subsequently obtain approval, which was not retrospective. Therefore legal aid was not applicable at the time of the engagement of Mann & Partners The only evidence we had at our disposal to gain an understanding of the allegation was the report of the Assessor shown at Appendix D. There is no written confirmation to support what hourly charge rate was agreed between Mann & Partners, and the Petitioners, only the Assessor s comment, I have observed that in a copy of an undated conference note that a charging rate of 175 per hour for the legal services was quoted to Mr and Mrs Megson. However, so far as I can ascertain this was never formally confirmed in writing. I have therefore decided, taking into account the requirements of Regulation 9(b), to assess the costs based upon an hourly rate of 125 per hour. 9

12 In addition the Assessor commented, As I do not have details of all the time spent by Messrs Mann & Partners I have decided that a fair assessment of the time spent would be in the order of 43 hours. There was no evidence available to your Committee to suggest that the hourly rate or the scope of work undertaken by Mann & Partners was excessive, just because the Assessor applied a different rate and an assessment of hours. Without evidence such as case notes we were unable to consider a further assessment or determine the scope of the work Consequently, your Committee concludes that any implied inconsistency relating to funding is no more than advocates setting their own rate of fees in relation to current market forces, and a scope of work agreed with the client. The Second Petition 5.13 The Second Petition alleges that the consequences of the main event are maladministration caused by the conflict of interest and the withholding of information, and obstruction of access to fair and proper justice in line with human rights, civil liberties and principles of natural justice From the evidence provided to us we are satisfied that the Petitioners were able to avail themselves of their choice of advocate, of assistance from the Legal Aid Fund and advice from the Isle of Man Law Society. It was their choice to question the palatabilty of the advice provided and their responsibility to accept that advice or issue instruction. 10

13 5.15 Your Committee found no evidence to suggest that anything improper has taken place. We are satisfied that procedures concerning engagement of advocates, procurement of assistance under the Legal Aid Scheme and the involvement of the Isle of Man Law Society were in accordance with normal practice. A Select Committee of Tynwald cannot adjudicate in judicial matters nor comment or judge on any functions of any other lawful authority, and, in particular, the High Court. PART 6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 We have been seriously hampered in our attempts to investigate the Petitioners complaints and concerns, and to comply with the terms of the Motion, as a Select Committee of Tynwald cannot interfere with matters currently in litigation. We have attached at Appendix E a list of legal proceedings involving the Petitioners as at October The Petitioners were requested in August 2006 to provide an update of matters which remain unresolved or have been resolved. To date we are aware that several matters remain before the High Court and as such are unable to comment further. 6.2 Standing Order of Tynwald [6.11(c)] states that Every Petition for Redress must- contain no reference to any matter capable of adjudication upon by the High Court or any tribunal or arbitration, or any formal officially recognised complaints procedure, unless the petition shows that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect the petitioner to resort, or have resorted, to such remedy; 11

14 In the case of the Petitioners, Appendix E does show that there are several matters before the High Court for adjudication, and the Petitioners have resorted to that remedy with the assistance of the Legal Aid fund. We therefore cannot investigate the particulars of the Petition but have commented upon the procedures where we can. 6.3 Your Committee did write to the Petitioners on 9 August 2006 seeking clarification and written confirmation concerning which matters of litigation were resolved and which matters are still to be determined. The response did not provide us with that confirmation. PART 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Your Committee recommends that (a) in respect of the First Petition, the allegations of abuse of the Legal Aid Fund and inconsistency relating to funding of solicitors, are unfounded, and (b) in respect of the Second Petition, your Committee is unable to make recommendation on matters subject to adjudication by the High Court, and (c) this Honourable Court does endorse the action taken by your Committee and agree that the investigations are concluded. Mrs A V Craine MHK, Chairman Mr A J Earnshaw MHK Mr P Karran MHK October

15 APPENDIX A PETITIONS OF REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE

16 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS APPENDIX B

17 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 1 The presentation of the Petitions arose out of differences in connection with Manx Auto Rescue Club Ltd ( the Company ), which was formed in The Directors were the Petitioner, Mr David Megson, and Mr D Cole, the Secretary Mrs T Cole: and the investor the Petitioner, Mrs Wendy Megson. The following year Mr and Mrs Cole requested further injections of cash into the Company but the Petitioners disagreed. Mr and Mrs Cole were prepared to inject more cash in return for a majority shareholding but the Petitioners again disagreed. 2 In 1997, there was a breakdown in the working relationship between the persons involved in the Company. There was a cooling off period when Mr Megson did not work in the business and Mrs Megson, having been appointed Secretary, did not visit the office. During that time, it is alleged, Mr and Mrs Cole copied the data registered on the Company computer, allowing them to access the database of clients. This data belonged to the Company and not to the individual members and therefore only the Company has a claim for that loss. Thus no claim can be brought under legal aid. 3 In September 1997 the Petitioners consulted Mr Christopher Murphy, advocate, of Messrs Mann & Partners following a further dispute between the directors of the Company. A letter was sent from Mr and Mrs Cole to Messrs Carter Jones McDonald stating that they did not want the Company to be wound up and indicating that they would sell their shares on certain conditions including advance payment of their salaries to the end of October. 4 Following proceedings in the High Court, there were lengthy negotiations between Mann & Partners and Carter Jones McDonald. The Petitioners had understood that Mr and Mrs Cole would be leaving the Island. It now appeared that they would not and therefore the Petitioners tried to insist upon the inclusion of a non-competition clause in the settlement. Mann & Partners drafted Heads of Agreement but advised the Petitioners that a noncompetition clause had not been included as it would not be acceptable to Mr and Mrs Cole. The Agreement was signed at noon on 22 nd September It was agreed that Mr Megson would assume responsibility and control of the business from 2 pm that day. 5 According to the Petitioners, Mr Cole set up in direct competition and approached all their business associates, whom they advised that the Petitioners were going out of business and that he was taking over all the Petitioners contracts. 6 A Bill of Costs had been issued in October 1997 to the Petitioners in respect of professional fees for work done by Mann and Partners in the sum of 4,406.25

18 inc VAT. The Petitioners did not pay this bill and on 27 th November 1997 the firm asked for a further instalment of fees and threatened to take possession of property. Subsequently Mr Cole was awarded payment plus costs and interest in respect of High Court proceedings concerning a Company cheque stopped by the Petitioners. 7 On 30 September 1998, a letter was sent from Carter Jones McDonald to Mann & Partners rejecting mediation and suggesting that each party should drop their claim and meet their own costs. Subsequently. Mann & Partners advised the Petitioners that they would no longer act for them. On 27 October 1998, Mann & Partners advised the Petitioners of a Call Over hearing to allot a hearing date and of a Notice of Motion to be removed from the record as acting for them. Mann & Partners later faxed the Petitioners concerning a date for hearing of the action between the Company and Mr and Mrs Cole and requesting certain details of the Coles debt. A Notice of Motion was subsequently filed by Carter Jones McDonald for an Order that they be released from the record as advocates for the Coles. The sitting of the High Court referred to in the Notice of Motion took place on 14 th December Mann and Partners costs were still unpaid by the Petitioners. On 3 rd February 1999 the firm advised the Petitioners that Proceedings will be commenced both against the company and against you in your personal capacities under terms of your guarantee to meet the costs personally. With regard to the company we shall if necessary in due course seek the appointment of a Liquidator. The Petitioners responded by questioning the way the firm had acted for them, adding: Whilst we fully accept you have accommodated us with regard to the question of your fees, you will also appreciate that we made it quite clear to you from day one that the only way we could ever discharge these would be in the event we were successful in a substantial damages claim, and we placed ourselves completely in your hands to this end. On 15 th March 1999 Mann & Partners issued a summons for 8, plus costs and interest. The Petitioners approached the Law Society requesting assessment of fees and requested the opinion of the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal. According to Mann and Partners: For Mr and Mrs Megson s convenience, the bills of costs were addressed to Manx Auto Rescue Club Limited the company which they own and control. Mr and Mrs Megson entered into personal guarantees for the payment of such costs. No significant payment in respect of our outstanding costs has been received for many months notwithstanding repeated promises and assurances that the same would be paid. The present complaint is no more than an attempt to further delay the payment of outstanding legal costs. 9 The Petitioners next instructed Mr Ian Corbridge, advocate, to investigate Mann & Partners fees. They say: We were once again advised to limit the damage and we were pressurised into agreeing to a Consent Order in the sum of 6K including VAT prior to any assessment of fees whatsoever and add: Ian Corbridge submitted his final account for negotiating a deal

19 which we were unhappy with. The cost being in the region of 2K with interest accruing. 10 A letter was sent from the Isle of Man Law Society to the Petitioners setting out the position and requesting them to set out, in full, their objections to the size of Mann and Partners bill. It explained that the Petitioners were only entitled to challenge whether or not the work was done and that they could not challenge whether or not the work was done badly, or whether the advice given to them was negligent. The Law Society obtained an undertaking from Mann and Partners to stay the proceedings against the petitioners and their company for recovery or until the assessment was completed. Mr Corbridge was advised by the Petitioners that they wished to defend Mann & Partners action on the grounds of negligence and to seek an Assessment of fees and setting out instructions to obtain a moratorium from Mann & Partners in respect of a Consent Order pending the outcome of the Assessment etc. Mr J Wright, Isle of Man Law Society sought clarification of the position from the Petitioners: Either the matter between yourselves and Mann & Partners is settled and the Consent Motion has been agreed, in which case the dispute between yourself and Mann & Partners is resolved and the Isle of Man Law Society can take no further part in it or it is not. The application was in fact out of time but the Petitioners stated that they did not feel in any way that they should have to convince the Law Society to assess the fees in question. The position was to some minor extent complicated by the fact that a letter to the Law Society had been mislaid. 11 On 9 th November 1999 Mann & Partners sent the Petitioners a copy of a petition to wind up the Company which, in view of the breach of the Consent Order, would be presented to the High Court within seven days unless the shortfall was paid or the conditions set out in an earlier letter were accepted. 12 In February 2000 Mann and Partners costs were reduced under assessment to 5375 plus VAT ( ) and on 17 th March 2000 Mann & Partners asked the Petitioners to make arrangements to clear the outstanding fees The Petitioners responded by requesting confirmation of monies received by Mann & Partners from them and stating that As soon as you can provide us with these details, we can consider the matter further and revert to you. Eventually Mann & Partners proceeded to obtain judgment against the Petitioners in the sum of 3, They subsequently stated their intention, judgment having been obtained, to proceed with appropriate enforcement measures forthwith. The Petitioners next requested the Isle of Man Law Society to intervene as Mr Murphy s opinion that the assessment vindicates him and/or his firm is bizarre. As we have received invoices totalling in the region of 13K and the assessment is circa 6K we consider there to be rather a large discrepancy here. At the end of May 2000 the Coroner contacted the Petitioners to obtain payment. In June 2000 a letter was sent from Mann & Partners to the Petitioners advising that the collection of outstanding fees was in the hands of the Coroner, that they were proceeding on the basis of the Consent Order of 14 th June 1999 ( 6,000) rather than the Assessment ( 6,315.62).and that should there be any further delay they reserved the right

20 to seek repayment of the balance of the Assessment. The Law Society informed the Petitioners that the Assessment was binding but that the firm was suing for a lesser amount on the basis of the Consent Order. If they wished to pay the amount of the Assessment they could do so. On 15 th October 2000 a letter was sent from the Petitioners to the Isle of Man Law Society indicating that they were still mindful to continue with our referral to the ADT and to bring private action(s) against Mr Murphy and his firm, however we are prepared to hold this in abeyance until sight of your final thoughts as to whether efforts to broker a deal now are futile. 13 Early in November 2000 the Petitioners suggested to the Isle of Man Law Society, that Mann & Partners (1) relinquish their claim (2) retain monies paid to date in full and final settlement (3) be responsible for out of pocket expenses totalling (4) cancel all and any outstanding issues before the Courts relating to Manx Auto Rescue Club Ltd and/or the Petitioners personally and that Mr Corbridge s costs be assessed and his fees be the responsibility of the Isle of Man Law Society. These proposals were rejected but it was indicated that Mr Corbridge would be prepared to reduce his total bill by 50%. However, the Petitioners advised the Isle of Man Law Society that they were mindful to await the findings of the recent Inquiry before responding further. Mr Corbridge s offer of a settlement was eventually accepted. 14 The Petitioners continued to raise objections and in June 2001 Mr John Wright, Wright & Co, advocates, who had been acting for them in these matters, advised them that if they continued acting unreasonably I will not be prepared to continue acting for you. I have negotiated a settlement on your behalf and its terms are fixed and you cannot not change it You did not provide me, when I was negotiating, details of any damages which you had incurred as a result of Corbridge s negligence. I asked you for them and you prevaricated. In the circumstances they are lost It is now quite clear to me why your relationship with previous Advocates has broken down. You are vexatious litigants and you are behaving in a manner which would result in any Advocate not wishing to act for you further. The deal I have done with Corbridge on your behalf is an extremely good deal. You are not covered by legal aid and legal aid will not be reinstated We have all agreed in previous meetings that you have not suffered any distress and trauma as a result of Corbridges involvement and negligence. The Petitioners denied that they were acting unreasonably. A letter was sent from Wright & Co to the Petitioners advising that, as the Isle of Man Law Society had confirmed the Petitioners correspondence was not being treated as a complaint by the Isle of Man Law Society he would no longer refuse to act for the Petitioners. All your problems will go away and you will not be required to show cause

21 if you will merely stop prevaricating and stop being stupid and sign the documentation to finally implement in full the Corbridge matter. The Petitioners then sought clarification of the proposed agreement with Mr Corbridge. 15 Mann and Partners offered a compromise for settlement of the matter i.e. acceptance of a nominal sum of 1,000 on condition that all actions, complaints, proceedings etc whether present, future, actual or contingent are irrevocably withdrawn. 16 About this time, an English barrister, Mr Wimold Parmak, was appointed to act for the Petitioners in respect of certain matters under a legal aid certificate. The Petitioners seem to have expected him to help with other matters and eventually he declined to assist in an action involving the Department of Transport as he was not prepared to act on a pro bono basis and that legal aid did not cover the case. 17 In March 2002 the Petitioners wrote to Mr Wright listing matters with which they wished him to deal (1) D H Cole and T E Cole, T McDonald and NatWest Bank : Fraudulent misrepresentation, theft and conspiracy to defraud (2) Mann & Partners, C J Murphy and C Arrowsmith: Fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and gross negligence (3) L Thompson, W J Thompson Accountants: Deception, misrepresentation of MARC s accounts and misconduct (4) I C Corbridge: Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, undue duress, misrepresentation and professional negligence (5) Isle of Man Law Society: Malfeasance, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (6) Civil Legal Aid Administration: Brach of civil liberties, malfeasance and misrepresentation (7) F Simmons (Legal Aid Administration): Misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to Pervert the course of justice (8) A Williamson (Acting High Bailiff): Misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

22 APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE RE CONSENTS OF PARTIES UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE LEGAL AID ACT

23 APPENDIX D REPORT OF REASSESSMENT OF FEES

24 APPENDIX E LIST OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AS AT OCTOBER 2004

25 Parliamentary Copyright available from: The Tynwald Library Buck s Road DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles October 2006 Tel: Fax: library@tynwald.org.im Price: 2.80