78 responses to “Philip Nicholls and the Cottle Catford Matter, Questions”

1. 

   Alvin Cummins

   April 27, 2016 at 9:58 am

   
   

   Well Well,

   “Alvin , heureux de vous entendre se taire …” As they say in Spanish, “Gracias!” Mais je suis pauvre!…Dans les journaux, et papiers de Panama? Non!! Et, je n’avais pas de maitre.

   @Hants,
   From the time I saw that posting and the accompanying photograph of the poster, I was angry, and will forever be angry at you. As Shakespeare wrote:…”First to thine own self be true…” A person who does what you are accused of doing, having been born in Barbados, is doing the bidding of others and cannot be true to themselves. I could never do something like that, not in a million years. Would you do that to your child? Put a picture of him and his infelicities in a conspicuous place where millions of people from all over the world can ridicule him and revile hime?You are doing that to every Bajan. We as a country and a people do things that may offend others. We as a country will make mistakes, but we do not deserve the type of scorn you are pouring on us.
   Yes Hants, I am still angry.

   Loading…
2. 

   Well Well & Consequences

   April 27, 2016 at 10:19 am

   
   

   We are good Alvin…

   Non malicev destiné … mais vous devez savoir quand couper vos perd ou descendre avec le navire .

   Loading…
3. 

   Well Well & Consequences

   April 27, 2016 at 10:22 am

   
   

   Alvin…Piece nearly had me looking online to order a book. What you saw re Hants was hypothetical, It was not real…lol

   You may want to tell Hants sorry, he is innocent..this time.

   Loading…
4. 

   Hants

   April 27, 2016 at 11:04 am

   
   

   @ Alvin Cummins,

   You are making a comprehensive asss of yourself and Pieceuhderockyeahright and those who read his post is laughing at you.

   @ Well Well & Consequences, I am glad that you can read, comprehend and perceptive enough to understand what our friend Pieceuhderock wrote. lol.

   I don’t want any apology from Alvin. He is not the first to falsely accuse me of “nefarious” acts.

   Loading…
5. 

   Well Well & Consequences

   April 27, 2016 at 1:03 pm

   
   

   Hants…Piece had me going fot a few seconds with that bestseller book, it looked so real.

   Alvin has not recovered from the other one yet…lol

   Where is Piece anyway, does he even know the chaos he is causing..lol

   Loading…
6. 

   Hants

   April 27, 2016 at 3:08 pm

   
   

   @ Well Well & Consequences,

   Maybe Piece gone to the post office to collect posters. lol

   Loading…
7. 

   Simple Simon

   April 27, 2016 at 8:50 pm

   
   

   @Amused April 27, 2016 at 6:17 AM “the ones that do nothing or little and take the credit, get the knighthoods and are made Dames. Was ever so. Classic example is “Sir” Marston Gibson – for services to law

   I hate to rub it in your face but “I told you so.”

   Loading…
8. 

   Simple Simon

   April 27, 2016 at 8:56 pm

   
   

   @de pedantic Dribbler April 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM “one of your lawyer colleagues who I was told said he would likely refuse any judicial appointment if offered because it would cramp his style…you know….checking and from time to time getting the lil date pon de side. I thought that as he grew older he would change his tune due to physical denouement, so to say, but maybe not. LOLL.”

   But nobody grows old now that there is viagra and cialis etc.

   Loading…
9. 

   pieceuhderockyeahright

   April 27, 2016 at 10:57 pm

   
   

   De ole man heah and tank (not AG Williams) wunna for asking.

   I was unwell so keeping my old three letter word quiet.

   I was reading the various contributions and noted that, as I suspect/ed, that Philip is not “without sin” and may, given the reasoning presented by Amused, be guilty as France

   But I was then looking at what Pedantic said of the party to whom Amused pledges such “untiring allegiance” and I was transfixed by what I call the skipping rope, which speaks to a young girl skipping and how, even though the rope is sometimes up or down, she adroitly, avoids said rope.

   So Vernon, like an adept skipper, has been on his game, most times when Amused has seen him but Marcelle, and certainly VS’ wife, would have seen him when he messed up his “skipping “, unless of course Amused wishes to impute that this is the “Second Coming” and Jesus incarnated in a lame hard of hearing 80+ old man

   @ Amused

   The Sam way that central bank is hold Leroy Parris money client funds can be held by an independent authority that, like your online bank account, allows you to see what your balances are, be you client, lawyer with an itch for client money, other lawyer awaiting buyer funds, purchaser of the land checking to see if your tiefing lawyer transferred your money to the other tief accunt but that is too easy for the Riley woman ent it?

   Loading…
10. 

    Hants

    April 27, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    
    

    @ pieceuhderockyeahright,

    Hope you are feeling better.

    Loading…
11. 

    Hants

    April 27, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    
    

    Loading…
12. 

    Amused

    April 28, 2016 at 11:22 am

    
    

    @de pedantic Dribbler April 27, 2016 at 8:23 AM. It is not unusual for a top lawyer to refuse an appointment as a judge. A top lawyer earns far more than a judge and so it would of course “cramp their style”. I remember a top QC friend of mine in Canada telling me once that his law firm was in the habit of getting rid of unsatisfactory partners by arranging for them to be appointed to the Bench where their incompetence would achieve for them the fame that private practice would not, that of being in the running to become the most appealed and overturned judge in Canada.

    @ Well Well & Consequences April 27, 2016 at 7:05 AM. I said you were very bright and I am glad to see that we stand a chance of a date, even if we must wait for another incarnation. You said: “I still believe that the attorneys whose reputations are affected by these rogue attorneys should withhold their loyalties from them, for the good of the profession, let them sink by themselves….” AGREE. But if you look at it historically, wasn’t it Mr Smith who led the charge to have Michael Simmons disbarred? Isn’t it the same Mr Smith who is leading the charge to call not just the CJ, but also the BA to account? Wasn’t it Mr Smith who single-handedly ended the nice little earner for the Nation arranged through the Registrar where unnecessary costs were being charged for large ads advertising the estates of deceased persons, a nice little earner arranged for the Nation by one Simmons CJ? Wasn’t it Mr Smith who took on the Hilton Hotel for racial (anti-black) discrimination and won? Also, back in the day was it not Mr Smith who reluctantly bowed to the wishes of Mr Barrow and took up the job of High Commissioner to London and then immediately resigned when he refused to follow the dictates of Sandiford, returned to Barbados and, along with Dr Haynes, started a third party in Parliament? And no, I am not the person of whom you speak – the honest attorney that you know. However, if you personally ever need assistance with legal matters and are in doubt as to how to proceed, I would be very happy to see if I can steer you in the right direction.

    I will share with you precisely what has bothered me all along about Nicholls’ court cases and which, ultimately, means that I will not read his book. Frankly I have better things to do with my time that read the outpourings of a person whole legal knowledge is no deficient.

    The Partnership Agreement of Cottle Catford & Co. mandates that, upon reaching the age of 70, partners must retire/withdraw from the partnership. Watson was 70 and he had no option but to retire/withdraw from the partnership.

    It is also set out that the next most senior takes over the position of senior partner.If you think about it, it is inherent in the title “senior partner”. Griffith was the next most senior. However, Nicholls said that he was not working with her and would leave the partnership. Griffith therefore offered to leave the partnership instead and so she too withdrew.

    The idea that apparently Nicholls is trying to engender that he was in some way “tricked” or otherwise misled into being senior partner is absolute nonsense. He actively sought it. So I have no hesitation in saying that he is a liar if he tries to claim otherwise.

    Next, there is no such animal as a “sole partnership”, although this is a fact of law thjat appears to have escaped the incompetents we call judges. The words “sole” and “partnership” make absolutely no sense in English, far less law, so presumably our judges and Nicholls are deficient in English as well. There were, prior to 01 January 2003, three partners. Watson, Griffith and Nicholls. Once Watson and Griffith resigned, the partnership ceased to exist and Nicholls had a legal obligation to register the name of Cottle Catford and to be the sole practitioner trading under the registered name of Cottle Catford. Therefore, Nicholls’ pleadings in his actions are fatally flawed, a fact that the courts ought to have spotted and thrown the case out, pending the proper registration and description of Nicholls’ role and position, which was not that of a partner or, indeed, of senior partner.

    Now we discover as a finding of fact that, contrary to what Nicholls has claimed, Mrs Watson repaid to Nicholls and Griffith all monies plus interest that she owed them as partners of the former partnership known as Cottle Catford & Co. Yet, knowing that the money was repaid, Nicholls has maliciously obtained an ex parte injunction that prevents Mrs Watson from dealing with the assets she owns in Barbados and Nicholls has allowed the injunction to subsist for a period of over a decade, with the apparent assistance of one Richards J.

    Now do you see why I have no intention of reading Nicholls’ book? Why. If I want to read legal fiction, I will buy a John Grisham novel. Because John Grisham at least understands law, so while the plots may be a little far-fetched, although having read Nicholls’ pleadings, I am starting to wonder, at least they are based on correct legal practice and procedures, of which Nicholls clearly does not have a clue.

    Loading…
13. 

    David

    April 28, 2016 at 11:29 am

    
    

    @Amused

    By Richards J are you referring to the Justice who was presented with the unholy sight of Alair Shepherd doing a moon?

    Loading…
14. 

    Amused

    April 28, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    
    

    @David. I could have been worse. It might have been unclothed and a wrinkly moon. But yes.

    Loading…
15. 

    Well Well & Consequences

    April 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    
    

    Amused…looking at it from your view point, I quite understand why you feel the need to give a full account of the story from the other side, of course I will now ask why Griffith did not pay back her money, since there is a judgement win against her and she lost her appeal, in all of this I am keeping sight of the money belonging to the clients…and repaying the money to Griffith would be frightening, since she can claim, as I am sure she did, according to the book at one point, that she never received money paid to the firm. This is scary stuff and would frighten away clients.

    I can circumnavigate the legal system quite nicely and rarely, if ever, need an attorney, but I will keep your offer in mind for others.

    Still wondering why Watson, particularly now that his age is revealed, alloed by Nicholls to take money from client’s account, that is a courtesy that should never been extended, ditto Griffith, that info ensures that Nicholls was responsible for their actions, as he was head of the firm, making all the decisions, so why the oversight in stopping them from drawings.

    Never knew Smith was so active in upgrading standards, live and learn, although with a snake like Simmons it would have been an uphill battle.

    Loading…
16. 

    John

    April 28, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    
    

    All those words and nary a mention by Amused of his nemesis Alair Shepherd!!

    Loading…
17. 

    Amused

    April 28, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    
    

    @Well well. I have no idea whether Griffith paid anything back or not. I am going on the documents posted here and axed a few questions solely based on those. As for the background to Nicholls taking over as senior partner, well that was generally well known.

    Taking a draw down if properly set up and regulated is of benefit to both partner and client. Think “decent interest”.

    Griffith would be in no position to say she did not receive payment if she cashed the cheque, any more than Nicholls could. I think it would be a safe bet that there will be similar proof to that against Nicholls.

    Loading…
18. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    April 28, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    
    

    @Amused, as you said the term ‘sole partnership’ is a contradiction of terms unless taken separately to mean one partnership rather than two. Which of course is not applicable here.

    However, that’s meaningless.

    But why was the Cottle partnership not valid and proper in the expectation that another associate or associates would have been invited to the partnership ranks to replace those who were retiring?

    Indeed for all practical intents it was also quite possible to invite an outside attorney of repute and skill to join the partnership…surely!

    Unless of course the partnership terms explicitly prevented such an invitation.

    Loading…
19. 

    Simple Simon

    April 28, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    
    

    @de pedantic Dribbler April 28, 2016 at 7:16 PM “Indeed for all practical intents it was also quite possible to invite an outside attorney of repute and skill to join the partnership…surely!”

    What if such an invitation was issued and nobody accepted?

    What then?

    Loading…
20. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    April 28, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    
    

    And what then? That’s self fulfilling!

    You ask someone to dance and if they decline you seek another partner or remain off the dance floor and dance by yourself. Very simple!

    Just asking about the options.

    Loading…
21. 

    Amused

    April 29, 2016 at 2:44 am

    
    

    @Pedantic. There are many former partnerships that now operate as sole practitioners under a registered name and they register and describe themselves as such. This is no way prevents them from taking on associates within the practice and, if it is later decided that the associate should become a partner, then the partnership can be registered. You assume that Nicholls asked one or others to come in as partners, but has it occurred to you that he may not have? That he may have sought associates, which is how I would do it, to see if they could work together as partners? Remember that the turnover of staff at Cottle Catford was extremely high since Hutchinson and Hinkson left – unusually so for a law firm and even the lowliest employee had nothing good to say about Nicholls (or Watson) well before the partnership, as opposed to the sole practitionership, ended on 01 January 2003. Incidentally, while I am sure that former Cottles employees have read Nicholls’ book – and I am not speaking about the attorneys, but the support staff – it may be instructive for you to address your questions to them, rather than me. That way, pedantically, you avoid having to accuse me of hearsay and you will have supported, or not, your suppositions with actual investigation. In other words, you will have done the work yourself, instead of simply throwing out irrelevant questions for others to answer. Of course it is likely Nicholls asked others to join him; but it is equally likely that they refused, as the legal community is a small one and word travels fast and furious. What Nicholls was looking for would have been an upwardly-mobile attorney with a good client list – but such an attorney would themselves have been looking for a partnership in a firm that could enhance their already-secure income, not a firm that expected to support itself out of that income. In any case, Cottles was done for. The scandals of Simmons and Waterman had left a bad taste. Armstrong was dead. Freddie had retired and so had Hinckson, so the confidence of the big money boys had gone with them. And can you really think of Watson, Griffith and Nicholls as being anyone’s dream team? Finally, is your pedantry now satisfied? Are you ready to move on to another area of the justice system? If so, I highly recommend to you BU’s latest Tales From the Courts.

    Loading…
22. 

    Well Well & Consequences

    April 29, 2016 at 6:31 am

    
    

    “Taking a draw down if properly set up and regulated is of benefit to both partner and client. Think “decent interest”.

    Amused…that is what I know happens at many law firms, of course it quickly turns into theft when the money is not repaid to the client account.. It did enter my mind re the Nicholls, Griffith, Watson relationship, being as it turned out, a clear very recipe for disaster.

    You missed some info by not reading the book and could have filled in quite a few spaces and answered some very disturbing questions.

    Loading…
23. 

    de pedantic Dribbler

    April 29, 2016 at 7:21 am

    
    

    @Amused, thank you. You have filled in the blanks re Cottle. Frankly I took it for granted that such a firm employed associate lawyers who could also ascend to the partnership ranks. You seem to suggest they were either all gone or otherwise non-existent at the time.

    You also suggest (as factually as any Cottle staffer could, I assume) that the firm was being poorly managed. Indicating that it’s a moot point to debate the acumen or savvy of Mr Nicholls as he became the managing partner: he (they) had already proved lack of acumen, in essence.

    Biased though one may consider you to be (based on your stated dislike of the gentleman) you also provide details objectively so I will accept your remarks as closure on all questions re Philip Nicholls and this expansive Cottle saga. No more irrelevant questions or pedantic ramblings!

    Loading…
24. 

    John

    April 30, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    
    

    David, if you take the time to read the style of cause on page 1 of the documents you published you will see the plaintiff is Cottle Catford and the respondent is Delvina Watson!!!

    You have erred and misdirected your readers 33 times as shown below!!

    What you really should be talking about is Cottle Catford vs Delvina Watson.

    Now, if Amused had read Philip’s book he would refer the ignorant among us to the chapter dealing with 151/152 of 2004 so David’s 33 journalistic errors could be corrected.

    Instead, he/she has chosen to contribute from a position of ignorance ensuring the ignorant among us remain ignorant, himself/herself included!!

    He/she has chosen to remain ignorant even although there is a book available to be read.

    Meanwhile, the wise who seek knowledge just get wiser!!

    Here are David’s 33 journalistic errors!!

    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

    Loading…
25. 

    John

    April 30, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    
    

    Loading…
26. 

    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.

    Loading…
27. 

    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.

    Loading…
28. 

    David

    September 6, 2021 at 3:52 pm

    
    

    Appellate court challenge
    Effort on to take disbarment case to CCJ
    by BARRY ALLEYNE barryalleyne@nationnews.com
    THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION to allow embattled attorney Philip Nicholls to keep practising law is being challenged.
    Lawyers have filed an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in Trinidad and Tobago to have that decision overturned.
    They want the CCJ to rule that Nicholls was properly found guilty of gross professional misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee of the Barbados Bar Association, and a recommendation that he be disbarred be upheld by the Court of Appeal.
    On July 27, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed a recommendation by the Disciplinary Committee to disbar the former partner of Cottle Catford & Co.
    Justices of Appeal Kaye Goodridge (retired) and William Chandler found that the report of the Bar Association to dismiss Nicholls was not valid, while Justice of Appeal Rajendra Narine dissented, determining the report was not flawed.
    The Disciplinary Committee claimed Nicholls had not been able to account for more than $800 000, the proceeds of the sale of a property in 2008, previously owned by John and Hazel Connor. John died in August 2008, while his wife remained at Rendezvous Retreat Nursing Home. She has since been removed from the facility as she could no longer afford to be kept there, and is being cared for by her sister.
    Evidence submitted to the Court of Appeal revealed that the committee, which was chaired by Cicely Chase (now Justice Cicely Chase-Harding) recommended that Nicholls be disbarred and his name removed from the roll of attorneys for unprofessional misconduct. The report was then submitted to the Court of Appeal.
    Queen’s Counsel Sir Elliott Mottley, who represented Nicholls, had objected to the court relying on the report, saying it was flawed since it only contained one signature and did not show on the face of the report that the committee was quorate, but Queen’s Counsel Barry Gale, representing the
    complainants, submitted it had satisfied the requirements of Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act.
    In an interview with the
    DAILY NATION, Gale said his clients were entirely dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal in July, and felt it necessary to take the matter to the CCJ to have it settled once and for all. He added if the Court of Appeal did not grant leave, they would go directly to the CCJ for special leave to appeal.
    The leave for appeal is being sought on two grounds:
    • the right to appeal “as of
    right” in the circumstances of the case which directly or indirectly relate to a claim or a question in relation to property in excess of $18 250; and
    • that the Court of Appeal’s
    decision was one arising from civil proceedings which determine a question of great public or general importance or questions, which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CCJ for its determination.
    Gale is asking the CCJ to consider whether a report by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association, as representing the findings, decision and recommendations, can be declared void for alleged procedural irregularities in the absence of evidence founding the basis, nature and extent of such alleged irregularities.
    The CCJ is also being asked to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling the complainants had made no complaint to that court in all the circumstances, and this affected its jurisdiction to discipline Nicholls under Section 23 of the Legal Profession Act.

    Source: Nation

    Loading…