.
Why the Vexatious Litigant
proceedings
against Martin Frost?
Overview.
Martin Frost, either as individual or in partnership with, has been involved in over 500 civil legal actions during the last 24 years, the bulk of which solicitors and counsel have acted for him. Note: it was in 1996 that the Faculty of Advocates prohibited counsel from acting for Frost; such still remains an unwritten rule.
A summary of the Lord Advocate Complaint.
John Bulman is a malicious complaint from Shepherd & Wedderburn who originally acted for me, and on account of my refusal to accept their negotiated settlement of £8,000 resigned agency. The background is that John Bulman sued me in an industrial tribunal for £18,000; an award of some £1,800 was eventually made but prior to appeal John Bulman poined my wife, Linda’s, possessions. Eventually by mutual agreement we both decided to walk away.
Unity Trust Bank Plc. The Lord Advocates portrayal is unbalanced and ignores the English IVA High Court proceedings in which Unity were found to have acted wrongly, costs were awarded against them, which costs as yet Unity has chosen not to pay.
Cintec International Limited. Mr Justice Laddie changed his mind as is seen in the transcript at the subsequent hearing on 16th Oct 03.
‘MR. JUSTICE LADDIE: No, I will not order indemnity costs in this case. In my view, although criticism can be levelled at the way in which the case was conducted by the defendants, I think criticism can also be levelled at the way it was conducted by the claimant. I suspect more criticism can be levelled at the defendants than the claimant, but all in all I am not persuaded this is a case where I should make an order other than the standard order for costs in favour of the claimant.’
On 30th November 04 the English taxation judge ruled that £216,000 costs were not proportional for a 4 day trial and that his upper limit would be £120,000 from which he would pair down Cintec’s costs (Note a final figure of less than £75,000 is now thought probable). That said there is now a very real possibility that the costs may ultimately go the other way as Mr Radford, for Cintec, conceded before the costs judge that Cintec’s managing director appears to have perjured himself in his original witness statement.
Note: I would not have been bankrupted by the English court; I was sequestrated in my opinion via a very clever abuse of process. In fact, the interim payment of £90,000 does not become final in England until the taxation is completed by the originating court.
I am accused of being a vexatious litigant, this I find somewhat ironic in that the complaint levied against me by some people from whom I have purchased rights is that I am not litigious enough. I copy my September 03 open letter:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Edenside Kelso TD5 7BS 2003-09-20
Edenside Kelso TD5 7BS 2003-09-20
Frost and McNamara
M Frost and A McNamara have ceased to operate as a unit. Both parties suffer from physical and mental ill health which has exacerbated their partnership. McNamara blames Frost for legal stupidity and accuses Frost of financial mismanagement. Frost accuses McNamara of lying to him, fabricating the truth, malicious rumour mongering, and an ability to secure convenient lapses of memory matched by unwillingness to honour unpleasant obligations. That said Frost still believes that the McNamara family were wronged by their legal advisors Tods Murray, and that Alexander Stone (Burness) and Levy & McRae failed to render a professional service which does amount to professional incompetence and negligence. Frost will continue to assist the McNamara family in securing appropriate and full recompense for their loss and hurt. Frost will seek to amend his position in each of the cases, as noted below, to reflect his position distinct from that of A McNamara. Frost will make no claim for Arakin Pension Fund damages and his Arakin assigned claims will be vastly reduced.
The causes affected are:
Tods Murray v Arakin: Court of Session. Frost reduces his claim to £400k
McNamara & Frost v Levy & McRae : Court of Session. Frost reduces his claim to £400k
Frost & McNamara v Alexander Stone: Court of Session. Frost reduces his claim to £150k
McNamara & Frost v First Minister and Sheriff Peebles: Court of Session Frost wishes to abandon.
Frost & McNamara v Brodies: Jedburgh Sheriff Court. Frost & McNamara have abandoned.
Stirling v Frost & McNamara: Jedburgh Sheriff Court. Frost wishes to settle.
Further parties are:
Peter Zani: A genuine victim of bad justice. Despite spending some time on this assignation prescription blocks further action and so assignation along with redemption returned to him.
Joan Pentland-Clark: A genuine victim of some bad justice but re-assignation withheld until appropriate court order or her solvency proved.
James Clark: Enquiry reports failed to justify his claims; assignation returned with suggestion he finds work.
Stuart Usher: A fantastic family man. Assignations returned. I very much like Stuart and his ideals but it would be best if he developed his land at Norton.
Scotland against Crooked Lawyers: A reflection on the Scottish legal system: has prompted some good things but should act more responsibly. Sometimes it is their member at fault and so they do an ill service to many an innocent citizen.
A personal note.
Had I wished to be a lawyer I would have been. I did not nor do I wish to be a member of the legal fraternity. Sadly, I now have more sympathy for the average embattled professional than his or her decrier. Agreed standards need to be improved, but again I believe that those using a professional’s services should also respect their locus.
In the last four years I have spent over £40,000 on books and another £10,000 or more on relevant computers and software. If I add in overheads, outlays, deposits, and expenses another £150,000 is quickly added to the bill. Again if I add on the potential liabilities acquired en route approximately a further £250,000 requires provision. Against this I have received some £60,000 in defrayed expenses but otherwise my income has been zero. Now as I have worked some 12,000 hours it takes no great genius to calculate that it costs me some £32.50 to work an hour. In short my good friend Mr McNamara is quite correct to suggest that I am not the best profit centre; equally it explains to me why the average professional does require a meaningful hourly rate for his services. This verdict, I regret, does not fall well with many of my associates, they are entitled to their views, myself I exit the stage.
Kind regards Martin Frost
Upon receipt of the Lord Advocate’s Petition I wrote the below article which was posted on my former web site; please note my offer to the Lord Advocate to settle this matter.
Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898
On the 2nd November 04 Martin Frost was served with a petition by the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd Q.C. claiming that Martin Frost is a vexatious litigant. The Court of Session warrant with the petition is signed by the Lord President, Lord Cullen. Solicitor for the Lord Advocate was Claire Cullen. The prayer to the Petition seeks that Martin Frost will be barred from instituting legal proceedings unless Martin Frost first obtains leave from a Lord Ordinary.
In Martin Frost’s opinion the Petition paints an unrepresentative, contradictory and often factually incorrect or distorted picture. The Petition appears to break new ground for in the main the Petition relates to matters which are currently before the courts; thus in Frost’s analysis the Petition is a flagrant breach of his rights to a fair and an impartial hearing. The Petition seeks to prejudge matters that to date Senators have deemed are worthy of consideration. Given that the Petition was prompted by Franks. MacAdam. Brown, agents for the Unity Trust Bank Plc (with whom Martin Frost is currently in litigation with) and thereafter by a combination of lawyers who have combined together to hurt Martin Frost economically; Martin Frost believes that this Petition is symbolic of Edinburgh’s socio judicial culture of cronyism and perceived corruption as he narrates in his Lady Smith and Art of Spying essays.
Furthermore, Martin Frost believes that this petition is itself a vexatious act by the Lord Advocate for it would achieve nothing but a substantial waste of public money if successful. In simple terms in Scotland, Martin Frost has raised no actions at all in the last 12 months (unless one counts his Petition for Recall of Sequestration). In the prior 12 month’s preceding Martin Frost raised only three legal actions, all in the Court of Session and all subject (as with all party litigants) to a Lord Ordinary’s leave.
In the last eight years Martin Frost has raised six actions in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts. Out of the six one required a hearing before a Sheriff prior to a warrant being granted; this action suffered a detour via a successful appeal to an Extra Division prior to Martin Frost abandoning the action and obtaining a decree of dismissal upon his payment of all expenses.
Three were remitted to the Court of Session. The two left mainly before the Sheriff Court resulted in (i) a negligence settlement plus costs from various practising solicitors to Frost; and (ii) an inhibition granted by Lady Paton to Frost for over £80,000 (now secured over an Edinburgh flat).
Of the three remitted to the Court of Session; Martin Frost obtained (i) an interdict against Scottish Borders Council and/or their agents; (ii) a successful Extra Division appeal with costs against Sheriff Peebles conduct; and (iii) a personal award of costs against Sheriff Peebles and the First Minister prior to Martin Frost abandoning the cause upon what Martin Frost perceived was an extra judicial solution. (Note: this was the first time in Scotland that a current practicing judge had had a court costs award made against him personally)
Early next week, upon the Law section of this web site, will be posted the Lord Advocate’s Petition against Martin Frost, along with more detailed observations by Martin Frost. In the meantime, Martin Frost suggests that he gives an undertaking not to raise any Scottish actions except in the Court of Session, which as with all party litigants a Lord Ordinary’s leave is required. Such a Frost undertaking should negate the necessity of expensive public legal proceedings which will no doubt be the outcome in Scotland and in Europe should the Lord Advocate continue this perceived witch hunt.
I
have answered the Lord Advocate’s Petition as follows:
IN THE COURT OF SESSION
ANSWERS
for
Martin Frost, the Respondent,
With a residence at Edenside, Kelso TD5 7BS
to the Petition of
The Right Honourable Colin Boyd Q.C., Her majesty’s Advocate
For an order under the
Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898
ANSWERS
for
Martin Frost, the Respondent,
With a residence at Edenside, Kelso TD5 7BS
to the Petition of
The Right Honourable Colin Boyd Q.C., Her majesty’s Advocate
For an order under the
Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898
ANSWERS TO STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.Admitted that Martin Frost, senior, as an individual has a place of business and a place of residence at Edenside, Kelso, TD5 7BS under explanation that two other legal entities called Martin Frost, namely Martin Frost, junior, and the partnership known as Martin Frost or Frost, Frost and more Frost, also have places of business and residences at Edenside.
2.Admitted that Martin Frost senior is party to the action Unity Trust Bank Plc v Frost. Denied a to p is a correct, true or balanced narrative. Admitted Martin Frost senior is party to the action Frost v Unity. Denied a to i is a correct, true or balanced narrative. Admitted Martin Frost senior has been party to the action Bulman v Frost. Denied (3) is a correct, true or balanced narrative. Admitted Martin Frost senior has been party to the action Frost v Bulman. Denied (4) is a correct, true or balanced narrative. Denied Martin Frost senior as an individual has been party to the action Tods Murray v Arakin. Denied Martin Frost senior as an individual has been party to the action Frost & McNamara v Alexander Stone. Denied Martin Frost senior as an individual has been party to the action McNamara v the First Minister. Admitted Martin Frost senior as an individual in partnership with Mr. John Parkes, senior, has been party to the action Frost & Parkes v Cintec International Limited. Denied a to f is a correct, true or balanced narrative. Admitted Martin Frost senior as an individual is a party to the action Frost v Cintec International Limited. Denied a to d is a correct, true or balanced narrative.
3.Denied. Averred that in Martin Frost senior as an individual’s opinion the Petition paints an unrepresentative, contradictory and often factually incorrect or distorted picture. The Petition appears to break new ground for in the main the Petition relates to matters which are currently before the courts; thus in Frost’s analysis the Petition is a flagrant breach of his rights to a fair and an impartial hearing. The Petition seeks to prejudge matters that todate Senators have deemed are worthy of consideration. Given that the Petition was prompted by Franks. MacAdam. Brown, agents for the Unity Trust Bank Plc (with whom Martin Frost senior is currently in litigation with) and thereafter by a combination of lawyers, headed up by Sheppard & Wedderburn who have combined together to hurt Martin Frost economically; Martin Frost senior as an individual believes that this Petition is symbolic of Edinburgh’s socio judicial culture of cronyism and perceived corruption as he narrates in his former web site, a copy of which on disc will be produced and incorporated herein brevitatis causa.
Furthermore, Martin Frost believes that this petition is itself a vexatious act by the Lord Advocate for it would achieve nothing but a substantial waste of public money if successful. In simple terms in Scotland, no Martin Frost has raised no actions at all in the last 12 months (unless one counts Martin Frost, senior, as an individual, Petition for Recall of Sequestration). In the prior 12 month’s preceding Martin Frost raised only three legal actions, all in the Court of Session and all subject (as with all party litigants) to a Lord Ordinary’s leave. In the last eight years the generic Martin Frost has raised six actions in Scotland’s Sheriff Courts. Out of the six one required a hearing before a Sheriff prior to a warrant being granted; this action suffered a detour via a successful appeal to an Extra Division prior to Martin Frost abandoning the action and obtaining a decree of dismissal upon his payment of all expenses. Three were remitted to the Court of Session. The two left mainly before the Sheriff Court resulted in (i) a negligence settlement plus costs from various practising solicitors to Frost; and (ii) an inhibition granted by Lady Paton to Frost for over £80,000 (now secured over an Edinburgh flat). Of the three remitted to the Court of Session; the generic Martin Frost obtained (i) an interdict against Scottish Borders Council and/or their agents; (ii) a successful Extra Division appeal with costs against Sheriff Peebles conduct; and (iii) a personal award of costs against Sheriff Peebles and the First Minister for their failure to obtemper the rules of written pleading prior to Martin Frost abandoning the cause upon what Martin Frost perceived was an extra judicial solution. (Note: this was the first time in Scotland that a current practicing judge had had a court costs award made against him personally). Admitted Martin Frost senior as an individual has been sequestrated denied thereafter.
4.Denied.
PLEAS-IN-LAW for MARTIN FROST, senior.
1. The petitioner's averments being irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification, the petition should be dismissed.
2.The petitioner's averments so far as material being unfounded in fact, the prayer of the petition should be refused.
3.In any event in the circumstances hereinbefore condescended upon, the petition should not be granted.
4.The interim order prayed for being incompetent, it should be refused.
5.Separatim, the interim order prayed for being unnecessary, it should be refused.
6.The petition should be dismissed on account of the petitioners’ breach of Martin Frost seniors, as an individual, human rights especially as to article 6.
IN RESPECT WHEREOF
Martin Frost, senior, as an individual
Edenside
Kelso
TD5 7BS
2004-11-22
Below is my opposition to the Lord Advocate’s motion, I believe he should accept my undertaking. Personally, I have no wish to pursue further court work though I will if provoked. As you may be aware I am very ill but I will not voluntarily concur to a vexatious order being made against me; my eldest son Martin Frost, is a company lawyer and the youngest regional member of the English Law Society, such an order we feel may reflect badly upon him.
FORM 23.4
Opposition of Motion
PART I
Name of Petitioner The Lord Advocate
Name of Respondent Martin Frost
Name of party
notifying opposition Martin Frost
PART II
Name of firm enrolling opposition Martin Frost
Telephone 07980041623
Date of notice of opposition. 13th December 2004
Date intimated 13th December 2004
Next due in court No date
Nature and effective date of enrolment of motions to be opposed:
To allow a hearing on the Petition and Answers and to set a two day hearing.
Reasons for Opposition.
The petition is factually misconceived but in any event the Respondent has offered an undertaking personally not to raise further Scottish actions except in the Court of Session which should negate the need for further court time and consideration of the Lord Advocate’s Petition.
PART III
Motion Slip---- General Department only
Name of case
Name of firm
If the court determines that this matter should progress I believe four days of court time would be more appropriate for a hearing.
Martin Frost
2004-12-13
On Tuesday morning I appeared before an Extra-Division of the Inner House, chaired by Lord Osborne, with Lords Hamilton and Kingarth on the bench. There was some interchange between the bench and counsel from which it became apparent that counsel for the Lord Advocate was not fully conversant with the case nor did he appreciate the complexity of the web site. (To be fair in subsequent discussion counsel admitted not to having viewed the website as he was not directly responsible for the Lord Advocate's pleadings).
In plain terms, counsel for the Lord Advocate wished matters to proceed to a legal debate and possible proof (trial) and as such he was not agreeable to the undertaking I proposed (as is shown below). The court agreed to allow me four weeks to adjust my pleadings so as to allow a full proof if such was eventually insisted or determined upon.
That said, Lord Osborne stated that the full terms of my undertaking was to be lodged into the court process and he noted that while the court could not compel the Lord Advocate to accept my undertaking, that now given, the undertaking would ensure that win or loose the Lord Advocate would possibly be liable for all subsequent expenses of mine.
a copy of my hand written
undertaking.
Added 11th January 2005
IN THE COURT OF SESSION
10th January 05
for
Martin Frost, the Respondent,
With a residence at Edenside, Kelso TD5 7BS
to the Petition of
The Right Honourable Colin Boyd Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate
For an order under the
Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898
1. Add at the end of each answer: 'The petitioner's averments are denied except so far as is coinciding herewith.'
2. In answer three after 'admitted Martin Frost senior as an individual has been sequestrated denied thereafter,' add:
'Explained that since his sequestration on April 1st 04, Martin Frost, senior, as an individual has successfully fought a number of legal actions which his permanent trustee abandoned back to him; furthermore Lord Johnstone on December 30th 04 allowed him to raise proceedings which the Accountant in Bankruptcy had also abandoned.
Martin Frost's Minute of Concurrence to Dean Warwick's Note of Objection (herewith incorporated herein brevitatis causa and found at the website www. martinfrost.ws section E. Insolvency and creditor recognition as item 18) illustrates Martin Frost's estate has a sufficiency of funds to pay all legal expenses providing the Accountant in Bankruptcy makes good her liability to Frost's estate.
Finally, as is, and will be explained in the above mentioned website (again incorporated herein brevitatis causa) these proceedings are prompted by vested interests which have no relevance to the actuality of litigation by Martin Frost, senior, as an individual.
In respect whereof
Martin Frost
2005-01-10
Added 11th January 2005
IN THE COURT OF SESSION
ADJUSTMENTS to the ANSWERS
10th January 05
for
Martin Frost, the Respondent,
With a residence at Edenside, Kelso TD5 7BS
to the Petition of
The Right Honourable Colin Boyd Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate
For an order under the
Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898
1. Add at the end of each answer: 'The petitioner's averments are denied except so far as is coinciding herewith.'
2. In answer three after 'admitted Martin Frost senior as an individual has been sequestrated denied thereafter,' add:
'Explained that since his sequestration on April 1st 04, Martin Frost, senior, as an individual has successfully fought a number of legal actions which his permanent trustee abandoned back to him; furthermore Lord Johnstone on December 30th 04 allowed him to raise proceedings which the Accountant in Bankruptcy had also abandoned.
Martin Frost's Minute of Concurrence to Dean Warwick's Note of Objection (herewith incorporated herein brevitatis causa and found at the website www. martinfrost.ws section E. Insolvency and creditor recognition as item 18) illustrates Martin Frost's estate has a sufficiency of funds to pay all legal expenses providing the Accountant in Bankruptcy makes good her liability to Frost's estate.
Finally, as is, and will be explained in the above mentioned website (again incorporated herein brevitatis causa) these proceedings are prompted by vested interests which have no relevance to the actuality of litigation by Martin Frost, senior, as an individual.
In respect whereof
Martin Frost
2005-01-10