The latest revelations on Angus Council’s presentation of its case to close Muirfield School have borne fruit. Continue reading
Tag Archives: case
School closures: the show must go on
Yesterday’s meeting at the HQ of Argyll and Bute Council was a very managed affair. Continue reading
Does Argyll not need affordable homes?
(Please read apology below and the comments on this article for the correct position.) The Scottish Government has just made £45m available Continue reading
No result yet on Tiree’s project in People’s Millions
We don’t know yet how Tiree has done with its Ringside Theatre Continue reading
Mid Argyll Swimming Pool Board puts Lochgilphead on the line with major demo plan
With support coming in from MSPs from all over Scotland, thanks to Continue reading
Mather in action on the Islay banking situation and supports suspension of HBOS action
(Updated below) Jim Mather, Argylls MSP and Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism – all of which Continue reading
Islay drama teacher drops £800k case against Argyll & Bute Council
42 year-old drama teacher Rosemary Fletcher, from Port Askaig in Islay, Continue reading
Stone of Destiny not proof against RBS – Ian Hamilton QC forced to abandon ‘negligence’ claim
At Oban Sheriff Court this morning (26th February) Sheriff Simon Pender upheld the plea by the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) that the case pursued against it in the Small Claims Court by retired QC Ian Hamilton (one of the gang of four students who liberated the Stone of Destiny from Westminster in 1950) would have to be heard in a higher court.
The bank’s argument was that the complexity of the case and of its potential consequences meant that it would need to be heard in a court higher than the Small Claims Court. Sheriff Pender agreed.
Mr Hamilton had made clear in advance that, if this decision went against him, he would have no option but to withdraw his case – and he has now done that. The Small Claims Court limits the amount that a losing litigant can be required to pay in respect of the costs of the other side. This is not the case in the Sheriff Court or any other higher court.
Mr Hamilton had initially taken his case to the Small Claims Court to claim against the RBS for negligence in raising a share issue without disclosing its financial position – and also as a way also of testing the ordinary person’s access to affordable justice.
It has been Mr Hamilton’s contention that the RBS move in arguing for the case to be heard in a higher court – where, should he lose, he would have no protection against the level of costs imposed – was intended to achieve just what has happened today. The case has been withdrawn.
The issue may not have gone to court but Mr Hamilton has made two notable scores.
- The publicity accorded to the case – and, ironically, to the RBS’s now successful attempt to have it transferred to a higher court – has meant that Mr Hamilton’s perception of the bank’s actions are now widely known and largely accepted.
- The lack of any judicial protection for the ordinary person to take legal action against an opponent with deep pockets has been laid bare.
David may not have felled Goliath but he has left his mark.
Stone of Destiny QC must wait a week to hear which court will hear Hamilton v RBS
Ian Hamilton QC, whose name will forever be associated with the deed of derring-do on Christmas day 1950 when he and three fellow students repatriated the Stone of Destiny from Westminster – albeit initially in two halves. They managed to break it while they and it went into hiding together.
Anyway, as we have reported recently, Mr Hamilton was in court yesterday (18th February) – specifically in the Small Claims Court in Oban in Argyll. He was beginning his case against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for compensation for a share issue the bank persuaded him and others to buy into in June 2008. Mr Hamilton, who is representing himself, argues that the bank was insolvent and concealed its financial situation at the time of this share issue.
The amount at stake is small and is within the limits that the Small Claims Court is empowered to deal with. The problem for the bank is that if Mr Hamilton wins, other larger shareholders will be encouraged to pursue legal action for compensation on their own account.
The RBS has therefore been arguing that the case should be heard by a higher court – perhaps the Oban Sheriff Court. This move is being resisted by Mr Hamiton because if he lost he would required to pay the RBS legal costs which in the Small Claims Court are limited to £150. In the Sheriff Court the costs applied could bankrupt him.
At the age of 83, Ian Hamilton is naturally unprepared to risk this financial wipeout and has said that if the decision of the Oban Small Claims Court is to pass the case to the Sheriff Court, he will have no choice but to withdrawn his case.
At heart, Mr Hamilton’s action is about making the point that the large and the powerful must be accountable without draconian cost to the ordinary citizen who may well have right on her or his side. He said in court that people were said to live in a democracy but that: ‘If this is so, there must exist a court in which the members of that democracy can defend their little pieces of property against the big beasts which prowl about in our society’.
At the start of the case in Oban yesterday, Mr Hamilton withdrew an allegation of fraud against the RBS which had previously been contained in the writ.
The RBS’s Solicitor advocate, Joyce Cullen, said that, with the bank denying all the claims made by Mr Hamilton, the action would include ‘detailed pleadings’ and there was no provision for this in the small claims court. She argued that the complexity of the case therefore indicated that it be heard in a higher court.
Both Mr Hamilton and the RBS will have to wait for Sheriff Simon Pender’s ruling on the issue which he will give next week.
A tale of two countries – Britain and Germany – in treatment of Iceland
The UK, to our enduring shame, used anti-terrorist legislation to seize the UK assets of Icelandic banks judged to be failing. One of the banks, Kaupthing, says that this action by the British Financial Services Authority (FSA) forced it into a bankruptcy it might otherwise have avoided. Kaupthing is suing the FSA with the support of the Icelandic Government and says that it will take its case to Europe if necessary.
The reaction of German investors has been very different. It was reported today (10th February) that around 30,000 German investors had a total of around US$426 million in Kaupthing when it went down last October.
A group representing these account holders came to Iceland to
discuss the situation with Icelandic authorities and met the Minister
of Business Affairs Gylfi Magnússon on Friday 6th February.
Karlheinz Bellmann, one of the group, came to Iceland to seek compensaation last November after the collape of Kaupthing. He saw then, at first hand, the suffering of many Icelanders hit hard by the crisis and decided to return and contribute to Icelandic society. He says Germans are generally compassionate towards Icelanders and the difficulties they are facing.
A group of the German investors who have lost their money has made an initial gesture of support when they were in Iceland on Frday last, donating a total of around US$1,300 and sweets to a Reykjavik charity, Maedrastyrksnefnd, which distributes food to needy residents.