Return to opening page Return to Views on Terrorism


En route to Scott's, requested by Alan Halliday to have a meeting. Met at the Scandic Hotel Edinburgh, Alan had John Parkes junior and another gentleman with him. I cannot recall the other gentleman’s name properly but believe it may have been MacDonald. We all sat down in the hotel's lounge and ordered coffee. After the introductions, in which it was indicated to me that MacDonald was experienced in the referral of causes to Strasbourg, MacDonald led the conversation. MacDonald stated that they (the three of them) had been along to the Petition Department at the Court of Session to inspect the process in the Scottish cause of 'Dell' v Cintec.( John Parkes senior's 'Scotch Egg' ) On the matter of Dell v Cintec, MacDonald immediately indicated that he had been authorised by John Parkes senior to have me removed from the action. This position was not countered by either Alan or John junior so I believe it to be true. MacDonald explained that he was an experienced litigator and was fully familiar with Court of Session procedure. MacDonald stated that I had not had the process called and furthermore after extensive enquiry the General Department (my correction) had not been able to find the process though a borrowing receipt from me, Martin Frost, indicated that I had borrowed out the process which I have subsequently failed to return. MacDonald indicated that he was taking charge of the action, MacDonald planned to enrol a motion which in the absence of Cintec would grant Dell Decree in absence; MacDonald stated that he had done similar before and attempted to explain to me the procedure for a Court of Session motion and the merits of a motion being starred or not starred.

 Apart from being angry with both the content and the hostile demeanour MacDonald took against me I attempted to quiz him and play the daft laddie as to Dell v Cintec Summons and cause. I am afraid I was not impressed (a) MacDonald seemed to have little knowledge of the procedure used when a Summons is put before a Lord Ordinary and an interim order is sought at the same time, I believe he may not have been informed that the Summons was redrafted to meet Lord Bonomy's requests before he would sign it, no process at the time was made up and no process was lodged in the manner of a normal Court of Session cause; (b) MacDonald seemed not to know that in any event Dell v Cintec is an intellectual property summons, marked as such and the different court procedure for such; such a Summons normally goes to an Intellectual property judge but because there was not one available at short notice Lord Bonomy presided; which was another reason why Lord Bonomy refused the interim interdict 'in hoc statu' ;( c ) MacDonald appeared to have no knowledge of the procedure adopted by the Court of Session in Frost & McNamara v Alexander Stone, where Frost obtained the right to sign along with an interim interdict from Lord Macfayden in December 2002, the action was never called in the normal way, no process was made up, but the action was reclaimed into the Inner House. Mid Summer 2003, in the Inner House before Lord Gill, counsel for Alexander Stone, questioned the competency of the Summons before the Court as it had not been called in the normal manner and that there was no formal process. Lord Gill countered and stated that as counsel was aware he could have at anytime sought to call the action into court had Alexander Stone been so minded to do in the traditional manner, Lord Gill indicated that as Alexander Stone's counsel was there his clients must obviously know the action was proceeding which along with the intimation was sufficient for the cause to be called into court (it was on the basis of this ruling along with my December Note that I had intended to seek decree against Cintec, I very much regret that MacDonald's clod hopping has ruined my chances in this respect, furthermore, MacDonald's avowed wish now to call in the traditional manner and then immediately enrol an unopposed motion for decree has no prospect of success, indeed his blundering has blown Dell's strategic gambit); (d) MacDonald ridiculed the presentation and content of the Dell v Cintec Summons, it was not on OYEZ paper nor was the Summons formally composed (in that he failed to note that Lord Bonomy had suggested much of the wording prior to Lord Bonomy granting the right to proceed).

 I moved the conversation then to the sequestration problem. Prior to playing the daft laddie I did warn MacDonald that I had extensive experience in insolvency matters both North and South of the border. MacDonald had obviously had much greater for MacDonald then proceeded to lecture me on the does and does nots. Much of what he said was just plain wrong. If we took the now superseded 1986 Insolvency Act he had no apparent knowledge of fraudulent preference and section 340(6); MacDonald denied the existence of Section 426 relating to Cross Border insolvency issues and 427 in which sequestration is acknowledged within the four corners of the Act. If we take the 1985 and 1993 Scottish Bankruptcy Acts I regret his understanding not only appeared limited but is blatantly wrong.

The real rub then occurred. MacDonald asked what my edge was, and he implied that I had impure motives. Both Alan and John leapt to my defence upon this issue. MacDonald then stated or rather implied that I and John, senior wouldn’t be in the sequestration predicament if I hadn’t been stupid over the English action. Neither John nor Alan defended MacDonald’s basic thrust but to be fair both Alan and John indicated that I had brought up the jurisdiction point before both Jacob and Laddie. In short, it was apparent to me that I was held to blame for the current financial hassle. This makes me grumpy as the advice received from young Martin; Nabarros; Jones Q.C. ; and Begbies all stated that we had no chance upon the threat issue and less than 25% on the infringement issue as matters stood. I gave John senior this advice both verbally and in writing by me but I agreed to stand by John senior as it was John’s wish to proceed no matter what the cost. Again I had the opportunity prior to trial to exit and so leave John with the whole hassle of the English proceedings, I choose not to and so Justice Laddie allowed Cintec at the bar to amend their pleadings to catch me. Yet again prior to the October final costs hearing John (at the Strand Palace) offered to allow me to exit and he would tell Justice Laddie that he was responsible for all the costs. This kind offer I refused because I was aware that if I had done so John would have been attacked sooner and a breathing space was needed. If MacDonald was aware of the above history, he chooses to ignore it; BUT more importantly he appeared to have not considered Justice Laddie’s decision whatsoever. Given the evidence available all independent legal authorities believe that Justice Laddie basically got his decision right. That does not mean that the U.K. patents are worthless or indeed Cintec will succeed in the US (which our opinions indicate that John will be successful upon two accounts). MacDonald appeared convinced that he would be successful upon the jurisdiction point if he brought injunctive proceedings in London. Given that our appeal was limited to the VAT point and that the appeal court judge refused further time to bring in new issues I am unsure if MacDonald will get off first base, that said if there be any prospect it should be executed forthwith prior to the service of the sequestration petitions which Scott’s indicated (that unless otherwise directed) Scotts would leave until the back end of this week.
As it was approaching 4 pm and I had a meeting at Scott’s to collect my committal papers I left the meeting in bad odour. I met at 4 p.m. with Scott’s who are sympathetic to our plight. Scott’s echoed Brian’s narrative as to Cintec’s apparent desperation. Since then I have spoken once briefly to John Parkes junior (see 0131 444 0038) and thrice to Alan Halladay (see 07711397034); MacDonald was described as having a Doctorate in Law by John junior, and by Alan as having a Doctorate in some form of Humanities which MacDonald practiced in Pakistan. To both Alan and John I indicated I would consider my position further and contact them again on Tuesday.

Unless persuaded otherwise I recommend.

1.    That if John Parkes senior pays the £90,000 we pay the balance of the English costs up to £150,000 i.e. another £60,000.

2.    That some mechanism is found to assist John Parkes in his USA action.

3.    That as it is apparent that trust between me and the ‘Dell family’ has broken down we exit all considerations of trading business involvements.

4.    That I exit the Scottish action in a manner which protects both my position and John senior.

5.    That when John Parkes senior’s health returns he is privately assisted and aided with his water suppression technology.

6.    That an alternative carrier vehicle is promptly acquired/developed to promote trading activities.

In summary, I am upset that matters have so developed. I am getting too old and much too sensitive. Fundamentally, they are all good people and should be helped if we can. I would like more information on MacDonald or who ever he is. MacDonald may well do OK in London which would further damage Cintec’s finances, but that said, not knowing I do believe MacDonald may be cognizant of the ‘Crooked Lawyer Cabal’ from which you are aware I appear to be in a state of flux.



Return to Views on Terrorism Return to opening page