(i)         The ‘sale’, at gross under value brought about a substantial short fall which Barclays’ sought to recover from my wife and I by way of ‘Summary Judgement under Rule 14.  We obtained a very favourable opinion from Angus Glennie QC, 4 Essex Court Temple London, ^[17] and  from Christopher Morris Senior Partner of Touché Ross regarding the way in which Cork Gully had carried out the receivership. ^[18]   I then approached Lester Russell, (LR), of Bournemouth who obtained Legal Aid Certificates to defend.   However for no apparent reason, some 18 months later, LR obtained a second opinion from a Roger Kaye, of Lincoln’s Inn, London (whom I never met), which was diametrically not as favourable as Glennie’s which caused my Legal Aid to be withdrawn. ^[19]     I later learned LR also acted for Barclays.

.

“It seems to me that there is sufficient in my client’s account of the conduct of the sale of the company to justify further investigation.”

“However, what concerns meat this stage is that there is no independent accountancy advice to indicate to me whether or not the complaints that my clients makes are well founded.”
     

“It seems to me that the correct approach to take at this stage is to explore the matter further by asking a reputable and leading firm of accountants with experience of acting as Receivers to give their opinion based upon the papers which I have before me and my clients comments both in his statement and no doubt, at a meeting with them. If their indication supports my clients opinion to the extent of saying that on the face of it looks as though the Receiver did not take the best and most reasonable steps to obtain a proper price for the assets of the business then I would suggest that there be sufficient evidence upon which to start an action based on negligence against the receiver.”

“I have dealt with the matter so far on a basis of a claim in negligence. The same facts go support the claim in conspiracy”

“There is prima facie evidence that the receiver of WLOL or the receiver of ROIL acted less than diligently in the conduct of the two receivership in a number of areas and taken as a whole suggest that the receivers have a case to answer. I list below some of the potential weak areas in the conduct of the receivership..”
     

“I DO CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS WHERE SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSESS IN THE CONDUCT Of THE RECEIVERSHIPS OF WLOL AND ROIL IN RELATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE REALISATION OF ASSETS SEEM TO BE APPARENT:”
     

I would obviously be willing to continue my involvement should you wish me to.”

“I therefore recommend that extension of Legal Aid for the further consideration of these claims…….. The accountant be asked to assess quantum.”
       
(ii)        We changed solicitors to Stephenson Harwood of  St Pauls Churchyard who, at the last minute edited out of our defence, conspiracy, fraud, or deception which were recommended in the Glennie opinion, as a defence, preferring instead a defence of ‘wrong calculation of interest’ which failed and Master Hodgson granted Barclays application for Order 14 ~ Summary Judgement.

(iii)       Stephenson Harwood then presented a supplementary bill for £8500, the agreed sum of £3500 having already been paid , in cash.    However, the Taxation  Court agreed with my application against the costs and ordered a massive reduction.   SH urgently asked for a 15 minute adjournment with me where they agreed to  waive their costs if I withdrew my Taxation action.  Action withdrawn, but my main case seriously impaired.

(iv)       Acting in person we Appealed, but Barclays produced in Court a new facility letter,^[20] which they now relied upon, issued on the 7th December 1981, allegedly signed by me on the 8th December 1981 which was impossible, I was in America.   I produced my 1981 Diary ^[21]   Passport ^[22], notarised witness statement from Frank Witty ^[23] my Engineering Director and a statement from Joe Forte’ ^[24] the President of Flowen Oils Delaware Valley Inc, (FODV), all demonstrating that I was in America from the 1st through to the 13th December 1981.    Therefore I could not have signed the said facility letter on the 8th or for that matter the Guarantees which were all dated the 1st December 1981. ^[25] 

I did however, whilst with Joe Forte’ on the 8th December ’81 go to FODV’s bank, drew, signed and ‘deposited’ into Peoples Bank Philadelphia a cheque ^[26] dated the 9th, (post dated awaiting transfer of funds from the UK promised overnight), for $250,000 which is confirmed by the cheque and Joe Forte.  

(v)        Yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence our Appeal was rejected and Barclays Order upheld by Michael Ogden QC (Acting as Judge), against both the evidence and breaking precedent law case we had used which was identical to mine, namely, Cryne v Barclays, [BCLC 1987. ^[27]    The Cryne case was used successfully in 1995 when Crimpfil Ltd was awarded £1.8 million against Barclays Bank. ^[28]    

(vi)       The Cryne Case had many similarities to mine, ^[29] so I tried to reach Gordon Cryne, but instead spoke to his father in law, who told me Gordon had been killed in a suspicious caravan fire aged 45, the press said it was suicide, but with a wife, two young children and a £17 million Court Order against Barclays’ suicide did not relate, what’s more the Death Certificate said, “Shock and Asphyxia sustain in a fire. Remainder of verdict left open.” ^[30]   This was not the first occasion I had heard of people causing trouble with banks who had died under suspicious circumstances.  A fellow casualty, Alfred Cullinane had received a letter from a mercenary who had been asked by the director of a bank to kill him which was found to be authentic by Roger Cook of the Cook Report who did a programme on the incident.  ^[31]  In accordance with their usual practice the police although informed did not get involved.