& LLP

Beaufort House 15 St Botolph Street London EC3A 7NJ

(For online SafNav systems use EC3A 7DT)
tel +44 7247 2277 fax +44 7071
DX 155 London CDE www.big.co.uk

Private and Confidential your ref

our ref
Mr J Lampert direct tel 020 7643 8562
15 Kingsgate Avenue direct fax 020 7643 8500
London N3 3DH e-mail ascott@blg.co.uk
date 6 August 2010

By Email

Dear Mr Lampert

Complaint regarding the conduct of the defence of your claim against Scott Barnes and
Simon Morris

I am now in a position to respond formally to your complaint. In order to do so I have reviewed

documents relating to the issues you have raised and have discussed matters with Mr White.
I have also read the Judgment of Mr Robin Spencer QC dated 7 July 2010, a copy of which is
attached for ease of reference.

In your emails of 20, 28 and 30 July you raised nine separate issues regarding the conduct of
the defence as follows:

1 Prior to the hearing of 6 July 2010, there was confusion as to the date of the hearing
and whether the matter would be heard by Master Kay on 16 July 2010.
2 You had not seen a copy of our letter to Master Kay dated 2 June 2010.
3 The application dated 21 May 2010 refers to a witness statement that you had not
seen and which you believe may not have been on the Court file, which you have also
not seen.
4 The request to move to a High Court Judge was not put to you as a "suggestion" as
allegedly stated in our letter of 2 June 2010.
5 Our letter of 2 June enclosed part of a report (dated February 2010) which mentions
that Lloyds TSB Bank had petitioned for your bankruptcy. We did not mention to
Master Kay that on 20 May 2010 Lloyds TSB had withdrawn its bankruptcy application.
6 This firm has "tampered" with evidence. In particular, parts of judgments have been
"redacted."
7 We convinced the Court that issues relating to this case belonged with a "public
enquiry."
8 The application for a civil restraint order against you was an excuse to by-pass Master
Kay and may be an abuse of process.
9 The matter properly belongs to the Chancery Division rather than the Queen's Bench
Division.

I will respond to each of these in turn.

7823033.doc
 Page 2
6 August 2010

"Prior to the Hearing on 6th July 2010 there was confusion as to the date of the
Hearing and whether the matter was to be heard by [Master Kay] on 16th July as
originally allocated."

I have considered correspondence dealing with this, including in particular this firm's
letter to you dated 7 June 2010, which explained in very clear and straightforward terms
that the actual hearing date was 6 July 2010 and that the hearing would be before a
Judge. Letters to you dated 3, 25, 28 and 30 June also indicated that the hearing would
take place on 6 July.
2. "/ had not, before [19 July], seen a copy of your letter of 2nd June 2010 to Master
Kay."

The letter of 2 June 2010 was concerned only with the listing of the hearing. Having
considered the matter I do not believe it was incumbent on us, given the nature of the
letter, to copy it to you.
3. "Your Application of 21st May 2010 refers to a Witness Statement that I have not seen,
and may not be on the Court file, which I have also not seen."
The application notice 21 May 2010 referred to the first witness statement of Simon
Konsta. The evidence I have suggests that a copy of the witness statement was served
on you with the application notice on 21 May and was also included in the bundle for the
hearing on 6 July.
4. "The request to move to a High Court Judge was never put to me as a "suggestion", as
stated in your letter of 2nd June 2010. It was never discussed with me."
Having considered the letter of 2 June 2010, it appears to me that the author was doing
no more than noting that the application notice had been served on you and that you
had not taken issue with the suggestion which appeared on page 2 of that notice that
the application be dealt with by a Judge.
5. "Your letter of 2nd June encloses part of a report to an APPG prepared, in part, by me.
It mentions that LloydsTSB Bank (who appointed your clients as AR's) had petitioned for
my bankruptcy. The report is dated February of this year. You fail to mention to Master
Kay that on 20th May 2010, two weeks before your letter, LloydsTSB withdrew that
bankruptcy application."
I have reviewed this with Mr White. I understand that when the letter of 2 June was sent
we were unaware that Lloyds had withdrawn its bankruptcy petition against you. I have
seen nothing to suggest that we were in fact aware that the petition had been withdrawn.
Bankruptcy matters do not normally become matters of public record unless and until a
hearing takes place, and Lloyds' petition did not get that far. The information we had
was contained in the report enclosed with our letter to the Master. We did not become
aware until you yourself informed us at a later stage that the petition had been
withdrawn.
6. "Your firm has "tampered" with evidence. Particularly Judgements as far as they relate
to your clients have been "redacted". You have produced further clearer copies (now on
the third attempt). I do not comprehend how these copies can get progressively clearer,

7823033.doc
 Page3
6 August 2010

and why the clearest copy not provided initially to the Court. You refer in your e-mail
of 16th July 2010 of copying of highlighted parts causing degradation. Yellow
highlighter does not cause this problem."
I have nothing to support an allegation that this firm has tampered with evidence.
As I understand it from Mr White, the only version of Popplewell J's Judgment available
to the team when the first witness statement of Sirnon Konsta was being prepared was
one that had already been photocopied in black and white at once, so that certain
highlighted sections appeared greyed out. Well before the hearing on 6 July it was
appreciated that repeated copying of this document had caused difficulties with legibility
and lighter copies were run in order to address this. This enabled us to send you clear
and legible copies of the judgment (a) by e-mail on 17 June, (b) by post on 18 June, (c)
in the exhibit to Mr White's witness statement and (d) in the hearing bundle,
7. you apparently (I still do not have a copy of the Judgement of 7th July) convinced the
Court issues relating to this case properly belonged with a "public enquiry". I am now
advised the matter (Statements of Affairs accuracy) is fully covered by s47 of the
Insolvency Act 1986.

I believe there may be a misunderstanding here. I do not see in the Judgment of Mr

Robin Spencer QC any suggestion by Mr Birt that this case properly belonged with a
public enquiry. What Mr Birt appears to have suggested is that you were seeking to use
the case as a forum for a public enquiry and that it was inappropriate for you to do so.
This was evidently accepted by the Judge: see his comments at paragraphs 15 and 74
of the Judgment.
8. "no [vexatious litigant] orders have been made for two years: a firm of your standing
must have known that you were NEVER EVER going to get such an order on the back
of one previous case against your clients, where I was given permission to Appeal. You
may wish to consider whether this is an abuse of process, or further contempt of Court
by your firm" and "you were never going to get [an extended civil restraint] order, a firm
of your standing must have known you were never get such an order based on previous
litigation, and the whole suggestion was just a further excuse to by-pass Master Kay's
Court, certainly an abuse of process and quite possibly something more serious."
I have seen nothing to suggest that given the long history summarised in the Judgment
of Mr Robin Spencer QC an application for a civil restraint order was so hopeless as to
bring into play issues of abuse of process.
9. "Master Kay may well have recognised this matter belonged with Chancery, where the
ONE previous case was heard. Instead, I am advised, the matter finished in front of a
high profile criminal barrister, who I am advised may not have had jurisdiction."
I have had difficulty following what you say here given that both sets of proceedings
appear to have been dealt with in the Queen's Bench Division.

Having carefully considered the points you have made I have seen nothing to suggest that this
firm has dealt with your claim in anything other than an appropriate and professional matter. I
am therefore unable to accept your complaint.

7823033.doc
 Page 4
6 August 2010

Should you be with this conclusion you have a right to refer the matter to the
Solicitors' Regulation Authority.

I note that many of your emails have been copied to other recipients. I am not doing the
same, but would ask that if you renew correspondence with those other recipients, or indeed
with the Solicitors' Regulation Authority, about any of these points you include a copy of this
letter in what you send them.

Yours sincerely

LJT-"

Andrew Scott
Partner
For Barlow Lyde & Gilbert LLP