Could Peter explain this apparent contradiction?

We were being asked to put up money that either was not needed or which NAHS had in its own bank account but was not willing to spend.

Readiness to File Papers in Court

Up until the day before we met in Nuneaton, Ralph Pike had been indicating to us that his lawyers were advising that NAHS had until "the end of October" within which to file its judicial review challenge.

Then during the meeting, Andrew Lockley advised us that he agreed with the views of David Anderson QC as regards the filing deadline.

As that date was considerably earlier, were NAHS and HFMA actually going to be ready in time?

Liaison with Irwin Mitchell

The draft Heads of Agreement contemplated just one person, appointed by the Steering Committee, giving instructions to Irwin Mitchell.

We had reason to believe that Ralph Pike intended that person to be him and because that question would be decided on majority vote if HFMA agreed, then we could have a situation where ANH had put up the money for the challenge and yet our expertise in my being a specialist litigation solicitor best able to manage and interface with the external legal team would be squandered.

As we were putting up the money that was going to be an issue.

We would be quite prepared to have a situation where one from NAHS or HFMA plus myself, gave instructions to Irwin Mitchell.

PA responded to these points and we then had a general discussion.

He was surprised that we now wanted to re-open the disclosure point as this had been discussed extensively in Nuneaton and we knew what their position was on this.

"Ralph will not disclose the NAHS case."

We knew that and whatever our lawyers were saying I was "a principal and could decide to accept this..." Indeed he thought ANH had finally decided to go along with this in Nuneaton.

I responded by saying that Rob and I could not go back to ANH's supporters simply ignoring the advice of our lawyers.

Yes we had gone round and round the houses on this question in Nuneaton precisely because it seemed to be such an intransigent position for NAHS to take!

Asking PA to give me some reason for this stance.

PA reiterated that for Ralph disclosure was simply not going to happen before we signed the Heads of Agreement.

Page 22

Previous Page

IAHF Home Page