ANH Response Page 4

Majority voting and instructions to Irwin Mitchell

Our concerns regarding liaison with Irwin Mitchell as to the future conduct of a joint case arose because Clause 6 of the HoA required majority voting and stipulated that only one person be appointed to give them instructions. This could have meant that my expertise as a litigation solicitor could be brushed aside if HFMA and NAHS voted to have their representative as the liaison. You asserted that you did not foresee a situation where my expertise as a litigation solicitor would not be used.

We found these answers most unsatisfactory and after considering the matter very carefully with our solicitors, Advisory Board, and key supporters (corporate, practitioner and consumer), came to the conclusion that the nonnegotiable terms for a joint challenge with NAHS and HFMA to the FSD were simply unreasonable and unacceptable. In sum ANH was being forced to:

Irrevocably commit to the NAHS/HFMA action before being allowed to know anything about it in advance
Irrevocably commit immediately to paying over £50,000 of our funds into this unknown joint venture
Lose control of its action to a majority voting system

It was for these reasons that we decided that pursuing a joint legal challenge would not be advantageous to ANH and its members. It was simply a price too high to pay and you, Ralph Pike, and Mike Abrahams were fully aware of these deal breaker concerns of ANH.

Accordingly any blame for the fact that ANH has had to pursue a separate challenge and any consequential "duplication of work and ...increase in costs" can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the unreasonable and quite intransigent stance of NAHS and HFMA.

Subsequent events have vindicated ANH's concerns and decision not to proceed with a joint case, as to which see below.

Consumers for Health Choice "CHC" has "supported" the NAHS/HFMA legal challenge

This is a most surprising assertion in view of the actual facts.
Ralph Pike as a Director of CHC (according to its current website) in an email dated 9^thSeptember 2003 to Dr Verkerk, categorically stated the following: "CHC is not involved in legal activity against either the kava-kava prohibitions or the FSD."
No one at the Nuneaton Meeting attended on behalf of CHC.
No witness statement in support of the NAHS/HFMA action was filed by anyone from CHC.
There is nothing on CHC's website, which gives any indication that CHC has had anything to do with this legal challenge.
We cannot see that CHC undertook any work or role in the conduct of your case.