Slater & Gordon – Part 764.
A dux lot is not a happy one, now that spring is here. Hmmn, here’s a conundrum.
Legal regulators in Victoria, Australia, have woken up to the dangers posed to ‘vulnerable clients’ by the imploding law firm Slater and Gordon.
The law firm is due to be booted out of the ASX200 index (the equivalent of our FTSE100) on March 18th – 7 days time. The implications for a firm which has lost 95% of its value are severe. Institutional investors, the ‘big’ fund managers, are forced to have a proportion of their money invested in the so called ‘blue chip’ ASX200 funds. After March 18th, they will no longer have to prop up Slater & Gordon, and will be free to sell their shares – for whatever handful of coppers they can get.
Slater & Gordon has been given until April 30th to come up with a plan that will convince the banks that they can trade their way out of their current troubles – if they don’t succeed, they will have to repay the full $890 million they borrowed to ‘expand’ their business in 12 months time. Slater & Gordon’s ‘trading income’ is inextricably tied to the settlement of the claims made by their thousands of clients worldwide for a range of alleged incidents – from rape by a travelling Womble during the commercial break – to hearing loss from working in a noisy environment.
Now legal experts in their home state of Victoria have belatedly realised the danger this poses to thousands of vulnerable clients. The quickest way to get money in through the door to satisfy the banks could be to settle claims for less than they were previously prepared to. This could be to the detriment of their clients. Particularly those where the firm is on a fixed tariff of fees. Under the Sales judgment for instance, the firm collect a fixed fee for each case, regardless of whether their client receives 100,000 pounds or 100,000 pence.
“It is a matter of public interest because there are thousands of clients with claims on track who will be wondering if they can continue to have confidence in their lawyers.”
The suggestion from leading legal academics is that the Victorian Legal Services Board appoint ‘guardians’ to protect ‘vulnerable clients’ from their own lawyers – Slater & Gordon!
Sheesh! We didn’t see that one coming!
One major problem is – who to appoint? Slater & Gordon’s rapacious travel through the personal injury boondocks has left few serious leading personal injury specialists available to protect these clients from their own lawyers…
It had been thought that some of the leading lights in the Slater & Gordon galaxy would desert the firm and set up their own small practices, taking their clients with them – now it emerges that they have a ‘gardening clause’ in their contracts, preventing them from doing any other work for three to six months, should they jump ship. It is thought that some of them will actually prefer to take such gardening leave – and keep their fitness to practice certificates intact, rather than face future censure for forcing clients to settle for peanuts in order to keep Slater’s afloat.
Will those leading lawyers care enough about their clients to go to court and try to force Slater’s to release them so that they can protect their clients?
Watch this space.
Me? I’m just staring out of my window at the river, watching all the ducks having their heads forced under water – it’s that time of year when they get royally stuffed….
- Owen
March 11, 2016 at 8:10 am -
As you sit there watching ucks getting stuffed, perhaps you could remind yourself that Janet Smith didn’t consider the testimony of the ten year old boy anally penetrated by Savile in his BBC dressing room after taking of the Womble costume he’d been wearing during the Top of the Pops broadcast anywhere near as entertainingly ludicrous as you and Bandini appear to find it.
- Owen
March 11, 2016 at 8:12 am -
“off”, not “of”
- Owen
March 11, 2016 at 8:18 am -
and “ducks” not “ucks”.
- Bandini
March 11, 2016 at 12:13 pm -
Owen, I answered you at length previously but did not receive a response:
https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/25/the-dame-janet-smith-review/#comment-18205726434427397
I would still love to hear your explanation for how C9 (a 10-year-old boy at the time of the alleged incident) was able to incorporate vivid descriptions of acts which he did not witness (but likely saw on the TV) into his narrative; if you recall, DJS herself had doubts over his evidence, but luckily for C9 (and the firm of P.I. solicitors representing his claim for compensation) ANOTHER alleged victim – living far, far away in a land without internet connection, apparently – stumbled upon an advert in the UK-press (message in a bottle?) from the same P.I. firm asking for ‘victims to come forward’, which she did, and lo & behold her ‘testimony’ propped up that of C9, and C9’s propped up hers.As I recall there was some confusion over what state of dress/undress was involved over the costume, but there is certainly one man who finds the scenario unlikely – Mike Batt, the ‘inventor’ of the Wombles.
The costumes – hand-made by Batt’s mother – were little more than prototypes at this stage & required much care. Schenanigans whilst wearing them would have been impossible, so I’m not sure where that leaves those two 15-year-olds who claimed to have been pawed by Savile – in a break during filming TOTP when a recorded interview was said to have taken place – on the same day as the allegations we are discussing. But back to the more serious claims:
Batt: “The opportunity for Savile to be in a Womble costume unattended by my Mum (who made them and guarded them like a lioness) is unthinkable.”
Questioner: “Maybe it was a cheap knock off womble. Or a fancy dress one.”
Batt: “No it was one of ours. That’s why I know my Mum wld have clung to it like glue til she got it back! She wld have chaperoned him”‘Unthinkable’, Owen.
I once again have to remind you that finding a ludicrous claim to be entertaining is not the same as finding a 10-year-old boy being “anally penetrated [i.e. raped] by Savile in his BBC dressing room” as something to laugh about; I don’t find such crimes amusing in the slightest, but I disagree with DJS and doubt this incident took place.By the way, Owen, I’ve maybe tracked down someone who could certainly have offered DJS an insight into claims & allegations now being rehashed on the front-pages of the trashy tabloids; unfortunately this was beyond the capabilities of the ‘Review’ with their multi-million budget… ’tis a shame, eh? Swinging my lamp, no honest journo do I find. Bah!
- Owen
March 12, 2016 at 1:29 am -
Bandini I hadn’t noticed your comment but now I’ve seen it I’ve replied. To summarise, Janet Smith’s conclusion at the end of Para 5.166 that despite the obvious discrepancies in essence the accounts of C9 and C46 corroborate each other and she accepts them as true is more substantial than your quibbling over conflicting details (which you also sometimes choose to misrepresent and spin). Your determination to set the bar for corroboration as high as it takes to deny the traumatic experience of those children is something that it’s pointless to argue any further with you. Be as clever as you like, Smith judged that C9 was telling the truth in saying that as a ten year old boy he had been anally raped by Savile and C46 was telling the truth when she said that as a twelve year old girl she had Savile’s finger inserted in her vagina. Your analysis of the subsidiary details does not overthrow the credibility of their memory of the real trauma they experienced. Disagree with Janet Smith all you like, that’s your choice, like your choice to put up Mike Batt’s speculation against the witnesses’ accounts – because it fits your thesis, not because it’s any more convincing as a factual record.
- Bandini
March 12, 2016 at 11:07 am -
Owen, be sure to scroll down to the bottom of that page too – some more words you may have missed…
I note that you studiously avoid the question put regarding the process by which an act which C9 did not witness (apart from on the telly) was incorporated into his allegation. I understand WHY you avoid it, but you could at least have made an effort to cook up some faintly-possible explanation!
Again – both here and in the answer you’ve made beneath the older article – you confuse a person’s true opinion of what might have happened with The Truth. I explained previously how DJS could have arrived at quite different conclusions over the likelihood of the allegations being truthful or not, any one of which having as much right to be deemed The Truth as the one she DID alight upon (and in which you ‘believe’ totally).
Why you deem Mike Batt’s words as ‘speculation’ but the fantastical & highly improbable allegations of compensation-seekers as ‘testimony’ speaks much of your own ‘thesis’. Is Batt lying? Was his mum in on the plot? Or might he just be telling you the plain, simple truth?
If you really want to push the point I’ll ask you how it was possible for a 10-year-boy to be anally raped & for his discomfort not to have been noticed by his chaperone (who must have been frozen solid, stood outside on the pavement for God knows how many hours) a few minutes after the attack. Similarly, the 12-year-old girl had someone waiting for her – again, they didn’t notice a thing.
Further, given that these two children had had the good fortune to turn up on spec without a ticket (and way below the age-limit), and that they had not only gained admission but had done so after being personally selected by that famous bloke off the telly who would be a constant figure during the rest of their childhood & right on through to adulthood, one might imagine that this momentous event would have entered their respective families’ collective history: every birthday, Christmas or similar get-together (or simply every single time that either TOTP or Jimmy Savile was mentioned/seen) someone would have recounted this tale, ‘re-traumatising’ them over & over again… but no one ever noticed a thing? It is, of course, too late to ask them now.
Four decades later, having never even thought to pen an anonymous letter to warn that Savile was raping small children, the courage was finally found to claim some compensation. Let’s hope it helps them deal with that ‘real trauma’, eh?
- Owen
March 13, 2016 at 10:21 am -
I’ll just go with Janet Smith on this one – she’s the person who had the evidence in front of her.
- Bandini
March 13, 2016 at 10:44 am -
She had SOME of it in front of her, Owen!
They had to despatch a “senior member of the team” to interview C46 on home turf a long way away from civilisation – presumably in the middle of a jungle/desert. Or was it a tiny fleck on the atlas most would assume was a fly squashed between its pages? We may never know! One for Michael Pallin…P.S. Neither did she have the evidence of those who worked on TOTP who wished to give evidence but were refused. You know, those who found these claims preposterous. She didn’t call Mike Batt either. And did she actually question any of those on the show over the likelihood of a 10-year-old boy running loose between the cameras & equipment of a heavily-choreographed show, so tiny that none of those cameras picked him up (even when they were hovering longingly over the ankles of the ‘pop dollies’!)? Nope.
- Owen
March 13, 2016 at 9:18 pm -
Bandini, she had sufficient evidence to convince. For whatever reason, you’ve nailed your flag so firmly to the mast there’s no way you can or want to take it down. Content yourself that your position is beyond obvious.
- Bandini
March 14, 2016 at 10:30 am -
I’m just amazed that all the evidence survived the long haul back to Blighty: the donkey ride on precipitous dirt tracks zig-zagging through mountain ranges; the sore-arsed journey through the dunes mounting a particularly ill-tempered camel; that most perilous stage of the trip – strapped to the back of a well-trained dolphin…
Thank God for the protective qualities of the leather knapsack, say I! When Senior Team Member Livingstone arrived to a much-changed London he clutched in his hand a papyrus map, and the spot marked by an X turned out to be the very vaults of the BBC! And he’d finally had that gap-year adventure his parents had talked him out of decades before, decades after the crimes he had been ‘investigating’…
- Bandini
- Owen
- Bandini
- Owen
- Bandini
- Owen
- Owen
- Don Cox
March 11, 2016 at 10:45 am - The Blocked Dwarf
March 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm -
watching all the ducks having their heads forced under water – it’s that time of year when they get royally stuffed….
Waterboarding Porn, Rule 36.
- DtP
March 11, 2016 at 2:55 pm -
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 11, 2016 at 3:36 pm -
- DtP
March 11, 2016 at 4:01 pm -
Excessive practice can cause mallardies and signet underlaying issues we’d not want to drake over. (that took far longer than the end product merits!)
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 11, 2016 at 6:04 pm -
Outstanding punnage! *doesn’t care to admit that he spent over half an hour pondering a word play on ‘mallard’ earlier* I muscovy try harder….
- Mudplugger
March 11, 2016 at 9:03 pm -
It’s called ‘style’ – you’ve eider got it or you haven’t.
- DtP
March 12, 2016 at 8:03 am -
That was genuine fun – cheers fella
- Mudplugger
- The Blocked Dwarf
- DtP
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Bill Sticker
March 11, 2016 at 6:49 pm -
F*** a duck. Oh wait, that’s what they’re doing. Police! Arrest those ducks!
As for the involuntary shrinkage of Slater & Gordon, I could think of worse things. Think of it as a ‘correction’ in an over inflated marketplace.
- DtP
- Jim McLean
March 11, 2016 at 12:29 pm -
Thank you Anna for keeping us up to date. I look forward to next week with relish.
- Ed P
March 11, 2016 at 12:31 pm -
Surely plum sauce, not relish?
- Ed P
- Moor Larkin
March 11, 2016 at 1:49 pm -
A farmer I used to know would wait for the ducks to pair up and then shoot most of the unpaired males, as country law dictated that there was a tendency for the surplus males to gang up on any defencless female as the season progressed and in the ensuing melee it was not unknown for the poor females to drown due to the torrent of affection they would be shown. There are so many possible analogies within this old country tale, that I hardly know where to start. I suspect for the modern city dweller however it will all be water of a duck’s back; and I shall certainly not mention the immigrants.
- Hadleigh Fan
March 11, 2016 at 3:37 pm -
And there was me thinking that Slater and Gordon were a saccharine pop duo in the 60s with some rather inappropriately named hits.
Funny how the old memory deceives you after a few decades …
- Ted Treen
March 11, 2016 at 7:25 pm -
Yes, and Slater’s sister was the delightful Jane Asher:- she of the nice cakes and scrumptious buns…
- Ted Treen
- Ljh
March 11, 2016 at 4:54 pm -
Moor Larkin: as an naive mother I thought keeping poultry would be a good educational experience for my daughters. They learned a lot about gangrape. I never kept bees which was probably fortunate.
- GG
March 11, 2016 at 5:16 pm -
What an interesting story. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer crowd of people.
A pedant writes: on that Womble story, if it’s the BBC, one can’t call any interruption a “commercial break”, that term being used solely in relation to commercial tv (eg ITV etc).
- The Blocked Dwarf
March 11, 2016 at 6:12 pm -
one can’t call any interruption a “commercial break”
No doubt the Landlady will make haste to amend that, it’s exactly the sort of sloppy-fly-in-face-of-facts ‘reporting’ she loathes (not that I speak for her ).
- The Blocked Dwarf
- Fat Steve
March 24, 2016 at 9:30 pm -
to satisfy the banks could be to settle claims for less than they were previously prepared to. This could be to the detriment of their clients.
Shame on you Anna and the Regulators. S&G short of integrity ? Perish the idea
but
now it emerges that they have a ‘gardening clause’ in their contracts, preventing them from doing any other work for three to six months, should they jump ship.
My guess is that if the regulators are tetchy S&G will be put into some form of recievership ….probably difficult for S&G shareholders who will be the loosers to prove any loss even if the reasons for recievership are a little weak. I mean shareholders are probably thanking their lucky stars there is limited liability. Dangerous to permit a profession ….those with privilage and power in Society to simply walk away when things go so wrong.
The Reciever will break up the practice ……no problem who are most likely to take the cases it will be S&G spin offs who the reciever will release from their gardening clauses (after payment of money due under the gardening clause most probably) coz there isn’t an alternative from what you describe
Still think the regulators will need to sweeten the deal for the S&G spinoffs……indemnities if you like …..guarantees as well most probably ……issues of professional indemnity insurance arise which will be a hoot and of course of subrogation if the regulators are right about settling claims short.
Yes this looks just like the banking crisis ….S&G too big to fail yet fail appears likely .
I will still wager the S&G partners will do well out of this if they play ‘chicken’ with the regulators. Not a moral thought but love to negotiate for the lunatics who have taken over the asylum against the warders but then i always was one who enjoyed taking on the so called grown ups who reckon they know and understand everything.
Who will loose out? My guess is more normal firms who will stump up larger fees for the privilage of being regulated.
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }