Proceedings against Quinn Legal Advocates, Isle of Man for negligence

WITHOUT PREJUDICE-
This article is recommended to parties who count on legal services of the following law firms In Isle of Man:

. Quinn Legal advocates

. Gaugh avocate

. Appleby global advocates

- for more information, pls see also my 3 other blogs:
. Quinn Legal Advocates, Isle of Man, fees and random bills
. Assessment of bills of solicitors or advocates in High courts of justice of Isle of Man
. Corporate service providers, Off shore companies, Isle of Man

.

. Background;

Trident Trust company in Isle of Man provided services for my company for many years until they made a mess in my affairs, as a result of which I sued them. They lied, cheated, covered up and could get away with it in the courts of justice.

Mr. Selwyn Haas at Trident Trust company in Jersey ,and Mr. David Bester managing director, Mr. Barry Short tax adviser, Mr. Gordon Mundy managing director, Mrs. Heather Kent manager, all at Trident Trust company Isle of Man are a gang of rough, nasty and shady people whom I would not recommend to my worse enemy. It is better to work with a gang of Sicilians who o they are more honest because they don’t pretend to be who they are not.

For details for Trident Trust’s case pls see

  my blog: Trident Trust company law suit and cover ups,                                    

So I sued Trident Trust for negligence. I was a litigant in person and prepared the case myself in great detail. I wanted to show the court how Trident trust had lied, cheated and tried to cover up.                          

A few law firms advised me on the side. An advocate in one of these firms Mr. Charles Coleman at Gaugh Advocates told me that for some reason ‘which he didn’t know’, litigant in persons had no chance to win there. He recommended Mr. Christopher Webb at Quinn legal to represent me during the trial.

 Unfortunately I followed his advice. This was perhaps the biggest mistake that I have ever made in my life.

I don’t understand why Mr. Coleman recommended Mr. Webb.  Subsequently I found out that Mr. Webb used to work for Gaugh, but as he had made a mess and had been sued he had left the company, been to a number of firms and ended up at Quinn Legal. It looks like Mr. Webb goes from firm to firm leaving a mess behind. The fact that Mr. Webb still manages to work in IOM is very fishy.I suppose there is a big sense of support, fraternity and solidarity among local professionals. I would not trust any firm where Mr. Webb works at.It is a sign that they have no respect for the client.

For more information about this matter pls see:

 my blog: Mr. Barry Short tax adviser atTrident Trust company IOM.

 In fact Mr. Webb is a total idiot and a danger to the public and should be barred from all courts of justice. As subsequently I found out that one of his clients had committed suicide because of the way he had been represented.  During Trident Trust company’s trial this idiot did not follow my instructions, threw out all my evidence , decided to use his stupid discretion and lost my case.

 I got so sick by the way that Mr. Webb conducted my case, that i had to leave the court room.  I got hysterical and could not go back. Mr. Webb followed me outside. I wanted to kick and slap that idiot. The only reason that i didn't do it was that we were in front of the courts of Justice and I thought i might get arrested for assault then and there.

The Judgement of His Honour Corlett in the High Court of Justice of Isle of Man, showed that His Honour who had not read all the documentation had misunderstood practically the whole case- No wonder...

Basically I lost my case, because Mr Webb threw out all my evidence before His Honour had the opportunity to examine it. He did not ask relevant questions, answered for Trident, let them say whatever they wanted...a total mess. I decided to sue Mr. Webb. However i thought this time i represent myself. I didn’t need another idiot to loose my case.

Mr. Webb charged me £18000 for 2 days of work and making a mess in my case. Trident Trust's advocate who had worked 6 months on the case and written all the documents charged me less than that. I wrote Mr. Webb an email and brought all the inaccuracies in the judgement to his attention and asked a refund. He never answered me.

Quinn Legal Law suit

So I decided to sue Mr. Christopher  Webb, previously at Quinn Legal advocates IOM and currently at Gaugh advocates IOM for negligence. It is most ironic that once I sued him, he left Quinn Legal and went back to Gaugh where he had already made a mess. Now isn’t that fishy?? Mr. Webb’s advocate was Mr. Tim Swift at Appleby global.

I wonder how Mr. Swift can practice as a reasonable advocate…..he certainly is the slowest advocate even for IOM s standard. For more information about Appleby global plssee my blog: Appleby advocates IOM, fees and tax bill.

My strategy was to show the court that Mr. Webb had not explained my documentary evidence properly. He had failed to show the court that Trident Trust had lied and that the lie was material and it would have affected the result of the hearing.

In my opening submissions I told the court that Mr. Webb failed to show the full picture to the court. As such the previous court had made a decision without hearing everything. 

During the cross-examination I showed many points to the court which Mr. Webb had not shown to the other court. 

Then during the closing submissions I put together all those points and explained to the court how Trident had lied and cheated and coverd up and even fabricated documents the day of the trial specially for the judge. In other words I put together all the holes in Trident's evidence and came up with one obvious straightforward lie!

So i showed the court that Trident had been dishonest, but thanksto my i diot advocate they could get away with it.

Trial of Mr. Christopher Webb

During the trial Mr. Webb mumbled and jumbled and said even less than he had said during Trident’s trial. Basically his defence was that my evidence was not good enough and he used his discretion- in other words he did what seemed better to him.

His Worhip the High Bailiff J. A. Needham was the judge. He was perhaps the most intelligent person that I have ever met in my life. He had read all the voluminous files and knew every word of the case. I was very happy that we had such an intelligent judge. I thought he would definitely understand the case and finally I would get justice. His Worship took note of everything which was said during the trial. I was very impressed.

Naturally as it was the first time that I cross-examined someone in a court room it was not easy for me.

The Transcript of the hearing shows that:

. Sometimes Mr. Webb pretended that he did not understand my questions, but His Worship understood everything and helped me by explaining my questions to him.

. However sometimes His Worship lost his patience with me and would say “pass…pass…”, so I asked another question. I didn’t know what he meant and I was too scared to ask him what he meant. Did it mean my question was not good? Did it mean he had already understood me? In any case Mr. Webb could get away with answering many questions.

 I assumed that His Worship already knew the 2 advocates and they had their way to talk to each other.  Sometimes I felt that I was not included in their discussions. When His Worship talked to the 2 advocates he lowered his voice and talked with respect, but when he talked to me he shouted and sounded angry , as if he wanted to say you stupid foreign litigant in person how dare you waste our time. It made me feel like the guilty party, as if I was being sued for negligence, not Mr. Webb. I had the impression that His Worship’s main concern was to find my faults.  I felt like a stupid student who had not done his homework properly.

I wanted to know how well His Worship knew Mr. Webb. So I asked Mr. Webb if he had already presented a case in front of His Worship. Mr Webb did not answer and His Worship just smiled and did not tell him to answer my question.

Sometimes when I asked a question which was not in his interest, Mr. Webb ignored me and turned to His Worship and whispered something. As they whispered, as if it was a private conversation, I could not hear many things which were said. So it was as if many of my questions were remained unanswered.

Other times when Mr. Webb did not want to answer a question he changed subject. Sometimes he just refused to answer the question and His Worship did not order him to answer.I got “pass….pass…”

Basically Mr. Webb was very lucky that he was being sued in his home town in front of a judge who probably knew him!

Mr. Webb’s negligence ;

I had made 3 claims against Trident Trust.

In very brief terms:

- Claim 1 was about my word against Trident’s word. Trident said I had given a certain order, but I said that I had not given that order. It was their misunderstanding.                                            

   In all my statements I had explained that it was important to look at the context, and there was a chain of correspondence which proved my word . The correspondence showed that if I had given that order, then I was either stupid or insane. Mr. Webb had not explained the context and the chain of correspondence to the other court.

. I asked Mr. Webb why hadn’t he shown the context and the correspondence to the previous court. He said thatI had not told him about the correspondence. I said but it was written in all my statements. Mr. Webb was mortified as his own advocate admitted that. In other words both advocates discreetly admitted that Mr. Webb had not shown my evidence.

- Claim 2: was about loosing the chance to do a transaction becauseTrident’s had been negligent. Trident had lied about this matter extensively. I asked many questions about this matter but Mr. Webb had no answer.At some point he became red like a tomato, but he kept his mouth well shut.

- Claim 3 was about the accounts of my company. Evidence showed that Trident had manipulated the accounts of my company in order to cover up their misunderstanding.                                                     

 However Mr. Webb had said nothing about this matter to the previous court. I asked Mr. Webb why he had not shown my evidence regarding the accounts to the other court. After a lot of hesitation and mumbling and jumbling he turned to his Worship and whispered because “it was fishy!!!”

Well… I had sued Trident because my case was fishy and I wanted everything  to be properly examined by the court. I think that is the reason that many people go to court. What sort of advocate does not wish to show fishy matters to the court? Naturally Mr. Webb had not an answer.

So basically I received no answer during one and a half day of cross-examination. It was a farce.

Mr. Swift explained to the court that advocates are allowed to use their discretion and Mr. Webb had used his discretion. In other words advocates can do and say whatever they want and get away with it.Mr. Swift referred to an authority for a penal case. I answered that Mr. Webb had used his discretion in the wrong way. Both advocated looked mortified. At the end of the hearing I had the pleasure to see that Mr Webb was in tears. So at least he understood how people felt when he used his stupid discretion and made a mess in their cases.

Transcript of the Judgement of His Worship Needham dated 19 Nov 2013

This is the most interesting part of it!

The transcript was 55 pages. I was very flattered to see that the very intelligent judge, referred to me as an intelligent woman twice and said that I had a lot of confidence in myself which was true to some extent! Never in my life I considered myself particularly intelligent or had any confidence in myself specially during that trial! But if the very intelligent judge says so, I certainly don’t argue with him.I framed that page of the transcript and put it on my desk.  

 However I wonder why he considered me intelligent? Was it because of something that I had said? Was it because of the way I put my case and cross-examined the Defendant?I don’t know….as in spite of my intelligence I lost the case!

The first part was about authorities which I don’t understand, but apparently although my case was not penal, His Worship accepted the authority for the penal case.He should know better…

Then about the 3 claims and Mr. Webb’s negligence:

-          Claim 1:  Regarding my word against Trident’s word: His Worship decided that the context of the situation was not important and the chain of correspondence did not count. In other words he said that Trident was right and in that case I was either insane or a liar! I wonder how I can be intelligent, insane or liar all at the same time?

-          Claim 2:  Regarding the loss of a chance claim His Worship decided that I had not indicated the quantum so the claim did not count. Mr. Webb and Mr. Swift were very lucky because no where in their statements they had said anything about quantum.They were lucky that His Worship came up with a decision that they themselves had not thought about!

-          Claim 3: regarding the accounts of the company His Worship decided that Mr. Webb was right if he did not explain a ‘fishy’ situation for the court! I wonder what does that mean? Why wouldn’t the court wish to hear or examine a fishy case??I thought that was precisely what the courts did…I went to several hearings in the courts of justice of London to see how things happened and I was amazed by the way judges examined ‘fishy’ cases. But perhaps that is not the case in Isle of Man.

-          During y closing submissons, I explained clearly how Trident had lied and cheated and Mr. Webb had failed to show it to the previous court. I talked about half and hour and His Worship took notes continuously. However in the transcript he said, I said ‘something;’…..Well I talk for half an hour and His Worship hears just ‘something’? That something was intelligent or a lie? His Worship did not say a word in the transcript about what I had said. What a cover up!

-          I really wanted to make an appeal and see what would other judges say about ‘fishy’ cases? Would they wish to hear that some local professional had lied, cheated, covered up and fabricated documents specially during the trial, or not?

-          I had been very lucky to hear His Honour Doyle the First Deemster of IOM during a hearing. I really wanted to know what he would say about this matter? But I had already wasted 5 years of my time and did not wish to waste another 5 years. I thought no Deemster would overturn the judgement of another Deemster in favour of some stupid or intelligent foreign litigant in person. If I wanted justice I would have to get out of IOM and reach the Privy Council in London and sadly my life was waiting for me to do many things which I had missed to do during those 5 years. So I gave up.

I tried to put myself in His Worship’s armchair to see the case from his point of view…

On one side there was a local advocate defended by another local advocate, sued for negligence because he had failed to show a court that a local company had lied and cheated.

On the other side there was some foreign litigant in person who nobody knew…

Who was right? What should be written in the judgement which was public?...

I checked judgements on the court’s website to see what were the chances of foreign litigant in person…well…you should check it for yourself!

I lost a lot of money in this case, but several local law firms made a lot of money thanks to the judgement.  

Conclusion: If local parties make a mess in your business, don’t bother to take your case to the court, as they don’t wish to hear it!