I can provide full details but with all due respect and without trying to put you off, I thought I was getting an answer from a lady barrister based in England.
Brief summary of proceedings so far
My Scottish company Apollo Engineering Limited is involved in a £5m claim against another Scottish company, XXXXX XXXXX Limited. The latter is a fully owned subsidiary of AMEC plc who is registered in Cheshire! AMEC is complicit under s423 of the Insolvency Act.
The claim is for payments due for specific performance clearly defined in the Sub-Contract and its inherent Bill of Quantities. It came about as a direct result of Scott removing the Installation element of the whole Sub-Contract to perform itself. The removal of Installation, the price of which was contractually indefinable in that the Bill rates were composite, constituted a material breach of contract the effect of which was to repudiate the parties contract. More important, the intent of that action was to defraud Apollo of some £2.2m due for completed performance plus £0.5m of further profit on the outstanding performance at the time.
This fraudulent action took place in August 1991 where I was forced to petition the court for Apollo’s winding up and at the same time Apollo rescinded the balance of Sub-Contract performance. In 1993, at the insistence of Scott, legal proceedings were sisted to arbitration. In 1997 the first arbiter ordered proof before answer but no proof of the case took place before the first Liquidator was sacked. The third Liquidator successfully applied to the court to have the Liquidation sisted and in 2004 I resumed control of Apollo and the claim against Scott.
The first arbiter retired and a second arbiter was appointed in 2005. In 2007 the new Arbiter ordained a legal debate following which he dismissed Apollo’s claim as irrelevant on wholly made up grounds. It can be shown that the dismissal was done in pure bad faith. In any event a claim for payments due for specific performance can’t possibly be rendered irrelevant. There is no such thing.
Having run out of fighting funds, in the last 4 years I have been seeking the Court of Session’s permission to allow me to represent Apollo in court so that I could initiate fraud proceedings against Scott and AMEC and/or serious irregularities proceedings on the part of the Arbiter. I have been turned down on the basis a lay person cannot represent a company in Scotland. I then personally appealed to the UKSC and following a hearing on 13 May on jurisdiction, Lord Hope has allowed an Appeal to the UKSC – see http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0038_Judgment.pdf I tried for legal aid here in Scotland so that I can get counsel to represent me personally at the UKSC hearing on 13 May but this became impossible following aggressive objections by Scott’s law agents.
The fact is that the contract was repudiated in order to defraud my company of some £5m. Most of this money belongs to the shareholders i.e. myself and my wife which in fact is our pension. That means we are also the victims of fraud. Since it would be almost impossible to get legal aid in Scotland to set off civil fraud proceedings, I am taking action in England against AMEC plc under s423 of the Insolvency Act – which does not apply in Scotland and is not time barred. It can be proven that not only AMEC was complicit in Scott’s fraudulent act but AMEC was also involved in fraudulent transactions by changing Scott’s Articles of Incorporation and stripping it of all assets knowing that very large sums were due to Apollo.
In February last I served AMEC with Statutory Demands for £3m plus statutory interest from 1991 which amounts to £6m. AMEC managed to get an injunction stopping me from petitioning for its winding up. Their defence was not that I had no right under s423 but that they have a bona fide defence. But they don’t. They have for 22 years funded and controlled Scott’s dilatory defence to Apollo’s simple claim by preventing proof through abuse of court process, preventing the course of justice, and general misrepresentation. Their defence in fact constitutes intrinsic fraud.
I AM NOT LOOKING FOR SCOTS LAW EXPERTS!!!
I didn't respond as you requested. However having emailed Justanswer that I'm not looking for advise on Scottish law, no one else has responded.