Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions

Philip_NichllsThe release of the book published by Philip V. Nicholls More Binding Than Marriage – the former partner of the once venerable Cottle Catford law firm – has only served to exacerbate public scrutiny of the legal profession. Those who read the book were astounded by many revelations shared by Nicholls. Until now the public has not been treated to a rebuttal to the tell-all.

BU shares the following documents received which put Nicholls on notice that offended and or interested parties intend to push back against some of his allegations. We invite others who have documents and a story to tell about the demise of Cottle Catford, the part played by Philip Nicholls and related other matters to visit the top of the BU page or click on the Contact Form located at the bottom of the blog (note the blog and NOT the comments section). Submissions via the contact page will be directed to BU’s confidential inbox.

Perusing the documents submitted we find it interesting that that upon the withdrawal of Allan Watson as a partner, he, along with Sir Neville Nicholls, were appointed by Cottle Catford whose sole partner was Philip Nicholls, to be consultants of Cottle Catford. If as at 01 January 2003, Philip Vernon Nicholls was the sole partner of Cottle Catford, why did he not have a taking of accounts? We invite Nicholls to elucidate on this matter in the public interest. In the book Nicholls pleads ignorance and a high level of naivete as contributing to highly questionable business decisions taken as a partner at Cottle Catford, can the scholarly and respected Sir Neville Nicholls claim to be of the same mind at that time?

A disclaimer: BU holds no brief for any of the actors in this affair. We will publish all documents received without fear or favour.

page 1-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 2-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 3-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 4-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 5-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 6-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 7-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 8-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 9-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 10-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 11-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 12-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 13-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 14-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 15-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 16-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 17-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 18-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 19-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 20-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 21-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 22-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 23-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 24-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 25-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 26-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 27-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 28-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 29-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 30-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 31-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 32-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

page 33-DelvinaWatson vs Cottle Catford

Tags: , , , ,

77 Comments on “Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions”

  1. Well Well & Consequences May 1, 2016 at 6:05 AM #

    Delvina Watson, Watson of the arrest warrants’ wife, used Cottle Catford’s client account, as her personal bank although I dont see anywhere in the book that shhe was either a lawyer or worked for the firm in any capacity, the book hints that she also built or bought a house from client’s money.

    A good question is, did Watson repay the money that was mentioned as missing from Gale’s law firm, while he was working there..

    By then, Watson had long flown the coop and an extradtion for his arrest never pursued and Delvina was said to be running up and down between Barbados and US to visit her husband, unimpeded, she was the best person to pursue, if she still owed the money, the book also hints that she was close to the other defendant Griffith.

    That’s why I told Amused as he has not read the book, many spaces are still left wide open that he can obviously explain.


  2. John May 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM #

    Many BU contributors will not read yet still profess to know what they do not know!!

    Amused for example has admitted he/she does not or perhaps will not read.

    It is as if they do not know what they do not know but perhaps in this case it is just willful and deliberate lies meant to deceive!!

    I googled to find a word for someone who is both ignorant and proud of that ignorance and found a word which I have never heard of which may explain Amused’s contribution.

    eristic ‎(plural eristics)
    1.One who makes specious arguments; one who is disputatious.
    2.A type of dialogue or argument where the participants do not have any reasonable goal. The aim is to argue for the sake of conflict, and often to see who can yell the loudest.

    There were others I reckon that were equally applicable!!

    I am sure there are some who will say the word applies to me too … but at least I do read and try and check my facts and have pretty clear and reasonable goals, even if sometimes they are known only to me.


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: