Before N&J had even managed to recover all of my files from VH, things took an unexpected turn. I received a call from Sat one morning. “Noel, we’ve had a letter from Joe Shooter’s solicitor. He’s complaining that he never received the shares in Nuneaton Borough.”
WHAT???
Joe Shooter had won the case in August 1990. He had strolled into Nuneaton Borough FC as Chairman, had taken full control, removed me and ousted the court-appointed interim board, then single-handedly run the club into the ground in a five-month period. During that time, he had been interviewed in the press and on the radio, and written a column in every home match programme, signing himself off as “Chairman Joe”.
Now, five years later, he was claiming that because I hadn’t physically signed and handed over a share transfer form, he had not had the value for which he had paid £117,000.
I had pointed out many times that he had in fact paid nothing.
I was stunned, shell-shocked, sick. Shooter had been empowered by the court order to effect the transfer himself, and to go back to court if there was a problem. Even in hindsight, handing over a transfer form or certificates never seemed necessary.
My opponent had enjoyed the full benefits of directorship and ownership, before breaking his new toy and throwing it out of the pram.
His claim was spurious. But the big question in my mind, was why had he brought the claim then?
Shooter had skulked out of Nuneaton soon after destroying the club in 1991, and had moved to Kiev. (I was later shown evidence that Shooter was receiving state benefits in the UK despite living in Ukraine, but pointing this out to the Legal Aid Board didn’t stop them from funding his action.)
Shooter could have pursued this “loss” at any time from December 1990. Any time. But no, he was gone. Until now. Until the exact moment I was seeking redress from VH.
Now, some may call me cynical, but it strikes me as way too much of a coincidence. I’m on the verge of suing VH, who have taken over £1,000,000 in fees from me without providing a professional service. And I have a really strong case.
But I’m stopped in my tracks, because Shooter reappears. In fact no, he doesn’t reappear. Because he doesn’t even come back from Kiev. All I see is a letter from his lawyer.
This convinces me more than anything that what I was up against wasn’t just an individual called Shooter. It was the system – a system in which members watch each other’s backs – one firm of solicitors telling another that they’re in trouble, and a third firm steps in to save the day.
A series of conspiracies to distract me from my aim of achieving justice. And here’s the clearest indication. I needed a barrister’s positive opinion in order to get legal aid to fight off Shooter. But the barrister, recommended by N&J, actually refused to represent me unless I agreed not to continue my action against VH.
N&J assured him the negligence claim against VH was on the “back burner”, but the barrister insisted on formal assurance that I would not withhold payment of Counsel’s fees on the grounds of any proposed negligence claim against VH, whether or not N&J sought to bring the barrister into the action as a third party. He also wanted formal assurance I wouldn’t be pressing for a negligence claim against VH. All this had to be in writing.
Why was the barrister allowed to get away with this? Because I had nowhere else to turn…
N&J turned the screw even further, by insisting I pay £3,000 per month on account with immediate effect. So they were tying me in knots fighting cases that should never have been brought, while putting me in a position where I couldn’t pay their fees.
The process of claiming legal aid – not to sue VH but to defend myself against Shooter – was a farce. We had a simple case: firstly, Shooter had lost nothing by not receiving a share certificate. Second – and N&J missed this completely – was that a clause in Harman’s 1990 Order had given Shooter specific permission to return to court to enforce the Order if required. Shooter had not at any point requested a share certificate, nor had he taken advantage of Harman’s clause.
Running in circles – all further away from the club I loved
We entered a circular process of argument with the Legal Aid Board that got us nowhere, and all the time the clock was ticking. Valuable time, time between me and the deadline beyond which I would be out of time to sue VH…
In August 1996 I put my foot down and we finally issued a writ against VH. Counsel again stuck a spanner in the works at the last minute, saying I didn’t have a particularly strong case “due to the lack of evidence in support of my claims”. I was dumbfounded – what more evidence did I need? VH couldn’t suddenly provide evidence of a long and illustrious track record in High Court litigation cases! They couldn’t provide evidence to show they’d challenged the injunction, or that they had protected me by insisting on supervised access to the books and records!
In my opinion, it was simple. If a barrister who had wanted me to win had posed the right questions in court, and VH had answered honestly, I would have won.
But if it was ever simple, lawyers wouldn’t make the extortionate sums of money they make.
Then N&J told me the writs on VH were to be held by the court pending the outcome of the Shooter case. In October 1996 N&J told me that the time limits for the High Court writ against VH were coming up. We were juggling my success against Shooter with my case against VH. If we issued the writ against VH and then had to withdraw as we’d won against Shooter, I’d end up paying all VH’s costs. If we asked for more time there was no guarantee we’d get it. I had to decide by December. If the Shooter issue wasn’t resolved by November 1996 then I would be out of time on the action with VH.
N&J then twisted the facts, proposing that VH must have advised me not to transfer shares to Shooter. They shifted the emphasis from what I had lost in the original case, and insisted that the outcome of this ‘new’ Shooter case would determine whether I had any case against VH at all – even though I had lost the club and a fortune in legal fees!
They ignored my arguments, which they had wholeheartedly agreed with in our first meeting, instead insisting that the strongest evidence I had against VH was in relation to their bad advice to me about Shooter’s share transfer forms and certificates.
I was being conned – even if I beat Shooter on this one I had lost the club and loads of money. But by November I had no option but to let go of the possibility of getting justice against VH. By choosing not to go ahead with the writ I lost any chance of winning a case against them.
They had beaten me.
I was badly represented by solicitors who were way out of their depth. Solicitors have a duty of care, and should under no circumstances take on work that they’re not capable of executing to a professional standard.
As a post script, the solicitor who completely mishandled my case against Varley Hibbs – Sat Bahia of Needham & James – was reported as “surprisingly incompetent” and “heavily fined” for his failings. At the time of writing,Bahia has for some years been prevented from being involved in any client work involving client fnances. The report of his misdeeds highlights that he qualified in 1993 – just a year before being handed my case by his firm! Click here for more details