Something a little more recent about Sheepy

Mr Justice Rimer (High Court judge, Chancery Division) on the dishonesty of your Chairman in a judgment delivered in June 2006.

[This has some quite long words so I know you will find it tough going, but persist.]

93. I do not accept that Mr Sheepshanks?s late recollection is of an event that happened and I reject his evidence that it did. The point is so central to the issues in the case that, had it happened and had he remembered it, he could not have failed to flag it up in his witness statement. The notion that the memory of the making of this collective decision suddenly emerged during the crisis of cross-examination is one I am not prepared to accept. Mr Sheepshanks?s evidence on this was, I find, the product of the wish being father to the thought. I was left with no confidence that it was a reliable recollection and I find it was not.

132. The thrust of Mr Sheepshanks?s evidence about this meeting was to distance himself as much as possible from what was obviously going on; in particular, he disclaimed participation in the negotiation of the terms of the draft agreement and suggested he was only present for a short time. That is not the picture painted in Mr Fyfe?s note, which conveys that he was at the heart of the discussions, and I find he was, which is what I would expect of the Committee?s Chairman. Mr Sheepshanks was keen to convey that it was not just the matching rights clause that was the major obstacle, but that other issues were also not resolved ? but he could not identify any. Like Mr Phillpotts, he was also keen to deflect any suggestion that the FLL regarded itself as, at this point, a willing contracting party, let alone as being close to agreement. He said he was ?extremely unhappy? to sign any binding agreement because he felt he was being pushed into it. He did not, however, suggest that Mr Alderson had given any indication that he needed more time to consider, from a lawyer?s point of view, the terms of the agreement that was being negotiated. In his witness statement he said that he ?attended the meeting feeling comfortable that Richard Alderson was dealing with all contractual aspects of the deal.? That is a travesty of what was happening. Mr Alderson was there as the lawyer, because his skills as such might be, and in fact were, required in connection with the drafting of any agreement; but ?the deal? was being negotiated by others, including Mr Sheepshanks.

134. It is clear, and I find, that at no point during the meeting was anything said about security. When asked if he agreed with that, Mr Sheepshanks said he could not say whether or not the matter was raised. That was a disingenuous answer. He knows it was not.

Posted By: Old Git, Jan 24, 14:52:44