Dear Mr Fearon,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
Your client: Mrs Eileen Wright
I have received this morning a copy of a letter dated 3 April 1986 which was written by your client to Mr Chambers in the Office of Care and Protection and I enclose a further copy of it for your reference. Many of the questions which have been raised in it relate to matters about which Mrs Vera Douglas, another sister of the Patient, has also expressed concern and about which I wrote a detailed letter to her on 3 April - of which you have received a copy. I do not wish to labour any straightforward points about which you may already have advised your client but I feel that some brief comments upon your client's latest letter (to Mr Chambers) should be made for the record.
1. In regard to the very short notice given to you (and to other solicitors and counsel present at the final review hearing on Friday 7 March) of the precise terms of the Agreement concluded between me and Messrs McCloskey & Co (representing Messrs Tughan & Co) I have commented fully in paragraph 9 (on the third page of my letter to Mrs Douglas of 3 April 1986).
2. It would appear from the second page of your client's letter to Mr Chambers that she is still labouring under the mistaken impression that Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited is still a company in which the estate of the late Charles Edward Moncrieff Gilpin (or members of his family) has a beneficial interest or shareholding. If your client does not yet understand the purpose and effect of the terms of the settlement which has now been concluded I respectfully suggest that it would be helpful if she could be fully advised of the correct position.
3. On the third page of her letter to Mr Chambers your client expresses concern that the Patient's estate "is still being plundered". In view of the exceptional care with which the Court has undertaken a protracted and comprehensive review of an unusually complicated case I consider that the use of such intemperate language at this stage is quite unjustified. I am certain that the Judge will wish to consider carefully how such a complaint may be justified and as the matter is still in the list before him on Friday next, 11 April, for the purpose of dealing with the outstanding question of costs I propose to draw his attention to your client's expression of concern. I must ask you, therefore, to take her specific instructions in regard to matters which have to be formally addressed to the Judge at that hearing. Please let me know (in writing) what substantive points may now have to be considered so that I may advise the Judge of them in good time before Friday's hearing.
4. Finally I should mention that I have also received this morning, from the Lord Chief Justice's Legal Secretary, another letter dated 3 April 1986 which was addressed to him by Mrs Vera Douglas. As some of the points contained in that letter relate to questions which have been of concern to your client I think that it would be helpful for you to have for reference copies of it and of my reply sent to-day.
F BRIAN HALL
This is known as leaning on the opposition, Mr. Hall.