I enclose basic details such as my complaints to the LCS and my Serious Fraud Office allegations. Followng the interventionof previous H.S Director of SFO offered his profuse apology for taking so longto car ry out a review. Try as he might, my allegations could not be fitted into the SFO's investigative remit.My MP has invited Jack Straw to carry out a judicial inquiry into ythe conduct of the .judges involved. Do you have a fax No? I can send you my sllegations to the ECHR - Lewis Nicholson
Complaints against the 2nd Defendant Mrs.P.E.Knox by Claimant Mr.V.L.Nicholson in the matter of : Queen’s Bench Reference:-HQO5X0247 not disclosed in the 4000 page trial bundle by Nicholson’s last two Solicitors, which would have been disclosed in Nicholson’s oral evidence in chief but denied by the court in breach of HMCS Rule 10.2.5 on the conduct of a trial; and in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998). Consisted of the following disciplinary grounds listed in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal 2008 annual report. the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service failed to place these complaints before the SDT
1. Misappropriation of client’s funds
2. Failure to pay Counsel’s fees
3. Breaches of Solicitors Practice Rules
4. Repeated failure to act on client’s instructions
5. Breaches of duty to the court/misleading the court by perjured witness statements and oral evidence
6. Breaches of professional duty ( failure to disclose )
7. Breaches of Legal Aid Regulations (Regulation 64) Obtained payment of £2203.13 from the complainant on 22/08/99 to pay for mediation costs. bill of costs lists payment to CEDR of £2203.13 on 24/08/99. On 19/11/99
CEDR complain that mediation fee still unpaid. Complainant instructed Solicitors in 2005 to recover the debt.
8. Uttering false documents with intent to deceive.
9. False accounting
10. Serious conflict of interest (defendants in serious financial difficulties)
11. Costs not justified (overcharging)
12. Failure to discharge professional duties honestly and reliably.
13. Took instructions from opponent’s Solicitor to the detriment of her client.
14. Failed to stop mediation at its commencement on 25/08/99 and advise Nicholson to seek independent legal advice following a serious conflict of interest.
15. Grossly misleading the applicant
16. Conduct unbefitting of a Solicitor
17. That she failed to act in the applicant’s best interests
18. That she provided misleading information to the opponant’s Solicitor so as to allow the opponant’s Solicitor to control the financial outcome of the mediation.
19 That she took advantage of the applicant’s reduced mental capacity for her own financial benefit.
20. That she placed Nicholson under duress by threatening to come off the record if Nicholson did not accede to the financial terms proposed by the Solicitors Indemnity Fund at mediation.
21. That she allowed SIF’s Solicitors to place Nicholson under duress by threatening to strike out Nicholson’s substantial claim if he did not accept SIF’s terms at mediation
22. That she breached undertakings given to Nicholson to pay his reasonable travelling expenses in acting as caseworker at the defendant’s offices, and 50% of the defendant’s charge to SIF for photocopying
23. Failed to execute a loan agreement for the sum of £12,500 provided on 25/08/99 by a relative of Nicholson to the 2nd defendant. Loan provided as proof of desperate financial circumstances. Failed to repay loan until Solicitors were instructed in 2005. It was claimed that the lender was not entitled to interest due to lack of a loan agreement.
24 Repeatedly ignored Nicholson’s instructions to declare various costs orders against him invalid and unenforceable due to the admission of negligence by Nicholson’s opponent, a Solicitor.
25. By virtue of paragraph 24 here before; allegedly cheated Nicholson out of £517,820 of interest by falsely claiming that the applicant had agreed a sum of £105,000 including interest, if SIF waived the adverse costs orders against him. Her duty to the applicant is set out at paragraph 24 here before. These costs orders were not quantified.
26 Interest was properly calculated by Mr.Justice Reddihough at 5.932 of a capital sum, therefore interest on a capital sum of £105,000 was £517,860. Mrs. Knox failed in her duty under Solicitors Practice Rule.1.01 (a);(c); (d); (e) and (f)
27. Knox Ukiwa’s mediation contemporaneous notes do not state that interest was included in the sum of £105,000, merely inclusive of costs indemnity. ( see paragraph 28). The mediation contemporaneous notes of SIF’s Solicitors confirm that it was Mrs.Knox who suggested that an offer of £105,000 should include interest was without my knowledge or authority. Mrs. Knox was aware by a letter dated 28th March 1999 from Pinsent- Curtis that offers made of £100,000 excluded interest. In addition, Mrs. Knox confirmed by letter dated 26/04/99 to Pinsent Curtis that offers for settlement at mediation would exclude interest.
28. Nicholson had obtained an Order 14 judgement with costs to be paid by SIF on 23/08/94. Knox Ukiwa’s mediation contemporaneous notes describe the offer of £105,000 as inclusive “ costs indemnity only. The 8th paragraph of her witness statement dated 28th April 2006 is drafted in the following terms:
“£ £105,000 inclusive plus costs indemnity”.
Mrs.Knox committed perjury by adding the word “Plus” to her witness statement which is not contained in her mediation contemporaneous notes
Stripping out the interest when interest was properly calculated on 27/07/07, left a capital sum of £17,860. Mrs.Knox had rejected SIF’s offer of £25,000 in May 1998. Mrs. Knox knew full well that putting an offer of £105,000 including interest, would have been rejected by the complainant.
29. Mrs.Knox barred Nicholson from the mediation negotiations contrary to established mediation practice in order to defraud Nicholson and pervert the course of justice.
30. Allegedly falsely claimed that an associate Solicitor attended the mediation on 25/08/99 and prepared mediation notes from . Apart from a very brief period at the morning mediation session, there is no record in SIF’s Solicitor’s mediation attendance note of his attendance at the mediation afternoon session. In confirmation; the costs application of Mrs. Knox only charges for one attendee at mediation, namely herself.
31. Page1 of Knox Ukiwa’s Bill of Costs dated 19/11/99, cites the hourly rate of a Partner @ £200.00 per hour. Item 2 at page 2 charges £1,600 for 480 minutes (8 hours) for mediation attendance for herself only, plus 100% mark up. Mrs. Knox charges a further 100% mark up on her entire bill of costs at item 64
32 In view of complaint 30 and 31 here before, it is alleged that Mrs. Knox fraudulently induced her associate Solicitor Mr. Christopher Ofokansi to utter a false document with intent to deceive, namely mediation contemporaneous notes claimed to have been written on 25th August 1999, when the content of Mr .Ofokansi’s notes do not match the content of the notes of Mr, Finnegan of Pinsent Curtis. Mrs. Knox allegedly further induced Mr.Ofokansi to commit perjury by his written witness statement placed before the High Court, and his oral evidence in the matter of: HQO5XO 247
33. Uttered a further false document with intent to deceive, namely a fraudulent Tomlin Order between 26/08/99 and 31/08/99 without the knowledge or authority, ostensible or otherwise, of the complainant who was the sole authorised party to sign any settlement terms. The complainant did not receive a copy of an unsealed Tomlin Order until 1st September 1999, and only after the Tomlin Order was sealed at the high court. The complainant made immediate representations to the High Court to stop the Tomlin Order from being sealed but was too late
34. The “modus operandi” of Mrs. Knox was that she was desperate to recover costs from SIF without delay because of the serious financial problems facing Knox Ukiwa and herself. The Complainant’s refusal
to accept the terms of the fraudulent Tomlin Order would have exacerbated the financial position of Knox Ukiwa and herself.
35. Effectively committed a contempt of court by falsely including the adverse costs orders in the alleged settlement without Nicholson’s knowledge or authority and without an order of the court, in view of Nicholson’s legal aid status. The authority of the court was needed to enforce the costs orders which would be deemed to be unenforceable
36. It was confirmed by Judge Reddihough on or about 27th July 2007 that the interest element on a capital offer of £105,000 was 5.932 or £517,860. The costs orders referred to in the Tomlin Order were not costed by either Pinsents or Mrs.Knox and could be estimated to be no more than £5,000. It is totally illogical to conclude that Nicholson would have accepted the inclusion of interest in the Tomlin Order, unless he was satisfied that these costs orders against him were in excess of £517,860: further confirming that Nicholson suffered a conspiracy to defraud at mediation
37. Allegedly conspired with SIF’s Solicitor by falsely claiming that Nicholson witnessed Mrs.Knox sign a Tomlin Order on 25/08/99 in the presence of two mediators which Nicholson and the two mediators deny. Documentation in the court bundle confirms that a Tomlin Order was not signed on 25/08/99
38. Falsely advised SIF’s Solicitors, following an extortionate application for costs for herself for £106,421.63 made on 19/11/99 against the applicant’s Legal Aid Certificate limitation of £10,000; that the applicant wished to attend the assessment of costs hearing. The applicant concludes that her “modus operandi” was to convince SIF that her application for costs was genuine.
39. Although receiving costs recovery from SIF by February 2001, Mrs.Knox failed to advise the Legal Services Commission (LSC) that the applicant’s Legal Aid Certificate could be discharged. The certificate was not discharged until 05/08/02 with payments of £9000 still outstanding to the LSC. Nicholson alleges that the “modus operandi” was to delay outstanding payments to others because of the continuation of the Legal Aid Certificate.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts contained in this statement are true.
Date 3rd December 2009
Amended 7th January 2010
Further amended 31st January 2010 ( new paragraphs 31-39)