DAY 10

[Amethyst]

Re: DAY 10

I don't see how Mr Doctors presentation skills should impact on the case. After all the confusion he is displaying going through the reams of T&Cs from the banks and pulling out relevant bits, just shows to the judge how bloody complex it is and if Mr Doctor is struggling, how on earth is a layman meant to make head nor tale of it.

Hes making the right points and bringing the arguments to the judges attention, and the judge isnt going to make a decision based on bank spin and polished lawyers - he will look at the facts.

[Paule]

Re: DAY 10

I think we also have to bear in mind that each QC is relating to his own Bank and Bri has to relate to ALL of them. therefore 8 times the info

[argentarius]

Re: DAY 10

I don't see how Mr Doctors presentation skills should impact on the case. After all the confusion he is displaying going through the reams of T&Cs from the banks and pulling out relevant bits, just shows to the judge how bloody complex it is and if Mr Doctor is struggling, how on earth is a layman meant to make head nor tale of it.

Hes making the right points and bringing the arguments to the judges attention, and the judge isnt going to make a decision based on bank spin and polished lawyers - he will look at the facts.

But a normal consumer doesn't have to attempt to remember 8 different banks' terms and conditions; they only have to understand one set.

So confusion between different banks' terms isn't relevant and doesn't get BD off the hook.

Nor is it logical, IMHO, that just because a QC presents his case badly, and coincidentally that case is supposed to rest (to some extent at least) on the fact that the contractual terms are too hard for the man on the Clapham omnibus to understand, the judgement should favour the side with the bad presentation!

[Budgie]

Re: DAY 10

The OFT have had at least six months to prepare their case, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for lack of preparation and poor presentation.

The OFT have already done all the work picking apart the various Banks terms and conditions and submitted ream upon ream of written evidence in support of their case. The banks didnt seem to bring anything new to the table in their court presentations so there is no reason why the OFT's QC could not have given a polished and practised presentation albeit on a larger scale than any of the individual banks have had to present.

I am looking forward to seeing the whole thing for myself on Monday, save me a seat EXC !!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Re: DAY 10

Everyone's an expert.

When you all take silk, I will listen to your criticism of a man who has been at the very top of his profession for the last seventeen years.

[Tools]

Re: DAY 10

And just to highlight that seventeen year career, Mr Doctor is far from incapable, each QC has their own style this may be the style used in the cases listed below. He is MORE THAN qualified to represent this case.As Cetelco says we should be supporting him and have faith in his expertise. If he were fixing a lorry I would have my doubts and criticise him , but he isn`t, he`s doing what he knows best.

Practice Areas:

Brian Doctor has a broad commercial and civil practice, specialising in:

• All areas of commercial law;
• Competition; and
• Civil Fraud

Recommendations:
Brian Doctor is recommended in Civil Fraud by The Legal 500 (2007 edition) which commented, “Brian Doctor QC has been involved in noteworthy cases..... and is highly rated as one of the leading commercial silks at the Bar.”
Professional Experience:
Brian Doctor has a broad commercial law practice. He started his professional career as a solicitor in London, then practised at the Bar in South Africa (took Silk there after 10 years), and has practised at Fountain Court since 1992 (took Silk in England in 1999). His case experience includes banking, insurance, competition and general hard-fought business disputes, many of them between international litigants. He also sits as an arbitrator, and has extensive arbitration experience as counsel both here and abroad.
Education:

BA, LL.B, BCL
Notable Cases:
Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws
Tajik Aluminium v Ermatov: challenge to jurisdiction by Part 20 Defendants: judgment of Commercial Court : [2006] EWHC 2374 (Comm)

Ansol v Rusal: jurisdiction challenge in computer hacking case: judgment of Commercial Court [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm)

Connelly v RTZ Corporation [1998 AC 354 (HL); [1996] 2 WLR 251(CA): acted for RTZ in forum non conveniens proceedings: clam by employee of foreign subsidiary against English parent company. House of Lords

Lubbe v Cape Plc [1998] CLC 1559;

Afrika v Cape Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545 (HL); [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 283. House of Lords. Acted for Cape Plc in forum non conveniens proceedings: group action by thousands of foreign claimants alleging asbestos injuries.

Simon Engineering Plc v Butte Mining Plc and Ernst and Young [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 104. Anti-suit injunction.

Hellenic Mutual War Risks Insurance Association (Bermuda) Limited v Wave City Shipping Company Limited. Anti-suit injunction involving a foreign defendant to enforce a London arbitration clause.

Casio Computer Corp v Kaiser (CA) [2001] I.L.Pr 43. Brussels Convention Articles 6(1) and 5(3)

Insurance
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1997] Ll. Reins. L.R.265 Professional negligence: Represented the Lloyd's Names in their successful claim against their Agents and Auditors. Also in the contribution proceedings: [1997] Ll. Reins. L.R.247.

Colin Baxter v Lombard Continental Insurance Plc Moral hazard and liability of principal for fraud of agent.

Dodson v Peter Dodson Insurance Services (CA) [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 512; [2001] 1 WLR 1012. Interpretation of motor insurance policy.

Society of Lloyd’s v Dougan [2003] Strike out for want of prosecution.

Banking and Financial
Advised OFT in connection with Credit ard default charges, leading to OFT Guidance in April 2006.

Three Rivers District Council and BCCI v Bank of England [2004 - 2005]

Shamil Bank of Bahrain v Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 1784 choice of law, Islamic banking

Komercni Banka AS v Stone & Rolls Ltd [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 383 Fraudulent presentation of letters of credit

UPC v Deutsche Bank 2000. Banking confidentiality, and alleged duty not to compete with customer

Swiss Bank Corporation v Premier League, The Times, 9 February 1995 Financial advice by bank. Claim for success fee.

Islington Borough Council v Morgan Grenfell Interest rate swaps

Islington Borough Council v Hambros Bank Interest rate swaps

The Bank of England v Gibson and others, The Times, 9 May 1994. Mareva application against employees of the Bank who stole notes from the printing workers. Then, the trial for successful recovery of the money.

Competition
The Medicaments Reference, (2001) Represented the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading in the successful application to remove Resale Price Maintenance on over-the-counter medicines.

Argos and Littlewoods v The Office of Fair Trading; acted for the OFT in various applications, and the trial regarding Chapter 1 price fixing [2004] CAT 24; [2004] All ER (D) 203 (judgment on liability). Court of Appeal:

Argos and Littlewoods v The Office of Fair Trading [2005] CAT 13 judgment on penalty

Advised OFT on Credit Card Default charges.

Advising OFT on on-going matters, both competition and regulatory.

Freezing Injunctions and witness summones
Tajik Aluminium v Ermatov and others [2005] EWCA Civ 1218 (CA) (witness summons, arbitration)

Tajik Aluminium v Ermatov and others [2005] EWHC 2241 (Ch) (discharge of freezing order)

Limitation
Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf [2002] WLR 1107 (House of Lords) Deliberate concealment

Connelly v RTZ Corporation [1999] CLC 533. Foreign Limitation Periods Act.

Hallam-Eames v Merrett Syndicates LtdThe Times, 25 January 1995 (C.A.)

Art claims: Advised in various art-work claims, including as to ownership resulting from limitation expiry.

General
Advised and acted as expert witness on a number of claims relating to works of art: possession, ownership, limitation, Nazi-seizure. 2005 - 2007Computer hacking: Ansol v Rusal [2006] EWHC 2545 (Comm).G A Ltd v H N Jewelry (Asia) Ltd [2004] EWCA (Civ) 674; construction of distribution agreement: rolling term contractFiat-Kobelco Construction Machinery SpA v HM Plant Limited. Excavator distributorship agreement, on-going High Court litigation, followed by international arbitration: 2002 - 2007Eurofi Limited v Teletech UK Limited, 1998. Claim for commission on contract to provide assistance with Regional Development SubsidiesPandora Investment SA v Momentum Films Ltd.(CA) 1999. film distribution contract (“Shine”); claim for license fee.

Equity
Tajik Aluminium v Ermatov and others [2006] EWHC 7 (Ch) (proprietary injunction)Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington [1996] AC 669 (H.L.) and [1994] 1 WLR 938 (C.A.). Leading case on equitable proprietary remedies, and compound v simple interest.Transag Haulage Ltd v. Leyland Daf Finance [1994] BCC 356. Relief from forfeiture.Re ASRS Establishment (In Administrative Receivership)[2000] 1 B.C.L.C. 727. Whether debenture creates fixed or floating charge. Casio Computer Corp v Kaiser, (CA) [2001[ I.L.Pr 43. Knowing receipt; knowing assistance.

Professional Negligence
Bristol and West Building Society v Kramer & Co The Times, 6 February 1995. Professional negligence claim (solicitors) that succeeded on summary judgment. Young v Robson Rhodes [1999] 3 All ER 524; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 641. Professional negligence; confidentiality and the role of Chinese walls;: auditors of Lloyd’s syndicate.

[Al59]

Re: DAY 10

There is an old saying in showbusiness, " You are always judged on your last show"
We all have a bad one now and again, it doesnt make you a crap act I have seen the best in the business die and I agree with Cet the man has been at the top of the tree for seventeen years so give him a chance He may suprise the lot of us.

[Tools]

Re: DAY 10

OK, Possibly a really crap example and yes I know its also fiction but.............

Think of the screen detective Columbo , muddling his way around an investigation, jumping from one seemingly hap-hazard question to another . Beneath the bungling exterior of Columbo there was a case being pieced together.


Oh christ , I`ve just read this back , it really is a crap example, sod it , its getting posted

[Amethyst]

Re: DAY 10

pmsl but he was trying not to let anyone know he was onto anything till the grand finale wasnt he. Brian's at least got to let the judge know he knows what hes on about.

[Budgie]

Re: DAY 10

Everyone's an expert.

When you all take silk, I will listen to your criticism of a man who has been at the very top of his profession for the last seventeen years.

I am not an expert but I am entitled to an OPINION !!!

Mr Doctor may have considerable experience but he, unlike me, is probably not owed thousands of Pounds in charges and interest by the banks. I, like many others, was and still am quite prepared to fight my own claim in the County Court but was prevented from doing so by this test case.

Mr Doctor is being paid to do this job, he should be doing that job to the best of his ability. If what we have heard so far regarding his presentation is a demonstration of his best efforts then he appears to be the wrong man for the job.

[Bitingback]

Re: DAY 10

I don't think we should let feelings run as high as they are here, naturally there will be comparisons between the strutting of the Banks "Dream Team" (should that be nightmare) and the individual holding the torch for the OFT.

We shouldn't let it get out of hand, the most important person in the room is the judge and from EXC's most excellent reporting he seems not to be taking much notice of either sides formidable reputations.

I am relieved the case seems to have a judge that will consider his decision based on the documentation not on presentation alone.

There is no reason to expect the OFT's QC would have any easier ride than the Banks team.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, flip side of that is you must accept others opinions as well an not resort to squabbeling in here, there are more important things to think about.


Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[Budgie]

Re: DAY 10

Totally agree Bitingback.

We shouldnt be squabbling amongst ourselves.

Onwards and Upwards !!

Budgie

[orc]

Re: DAY 10

Thanks to Exc for the original post.

However, more importantly, a very big thanks for attending the Test Case in the first place, which takes his time. Presumably there are other things he could be doing. Then he has to prepare his notes from that, when perhaps there are other competing demands on his time. Lastly, a thanks for offering to share the information with members here and others, who visit this site.

We can all interpret what is said and draw our own conclusions. That is something we should all be used to, whatever we read and wherever that may be.

Clearly, judgement rests with the judge, he won't be influenced by perceived poor performance or tricks from the dark side.

Best to all!

[scoobydoo]

Re: DAY 10

I think part of the reactions lie in the fact that most people reading the reports have a big vested interest in this case going well. They have been pushed into taking action in the courts and now really want some sort of resolution. At this point after fighting for so long there is bound to be an underlying suspicion that the "big boys" have some kind of deal already up their sleeves - as the resulting financial result of the banks not suceeding may add to a precarious scenario.

EXC is only reporting what he sees and I do think that preparation and presentation are important as the judge has to clearly and quickly understand the arguments without being distracted.

however as reported the "doctor" does appear to have considerable experience and maybe this is the way he operates - and will lull the banks into a false sense of security and finish up with a final sting in the tail!

Although I agree the case should be based on the facts presented - in this case the "facts" seem few and far between and the arguments are extremely complex- Some of the language used seems to sum up a twighlight world of rules and T&C understood only by the banks.If it was a straight forward case it would have been over by now.

Thanks again for all the reporting - and healthy discussion. Lets not get overheated (like some other sites)

jan

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: DAY 10

Having been to court several times (lol), even Crown Court once, the argument seems to change in favour of either party several times, all the QC's are top flight, as per the judge, it don't matter if mr Doctor talks like Orville the duck, and wears a pink and purple pin stripe suit, as long as he gets his point across.
As per usual, there are too many opinions & panics, wait and see, the judge will call it right, as we have already seen, in days previous to day 9, theres no beating about the bush, no leading him down the garden path.
I have a good feeling about this judge, and in the past, this feeling has served me well lol.