ANTHONY GOLD LERMAN & MUIRHEAD

London Bridge, London, SE1 2TQ.
Period: 1987 – 1990
Legal Work: Litigation: To recover proceeds of sale from my home.

SOLICITORS:
Linda Muirhead
David Marshall https://anthonygold.co.uk/people/david-marshall

On 21 September 1987 I visited Linda Muirhead at the firm’s office in Streatham Hill SW2.
I explained how Rodney had ripped me off and had used my money to set himself up in the property business. LM asked me to produce proof of evidence. I produced proof of evidence dated: 21 September, 25 September and 2nd October.

LM transferred the case to her colleague David Marshall at their London Bridge office. DM qualified as a solicitor in September 1987 and was the responsible solicitor throughout the entire case.

I met with DM on 30 September and explicitly gave him my instructions:

  • • Force the sale of all Rodney’s properties, ASAP in order for me to recover my money.
  • • Obtain an injunction against Rodney to stop him from disposing of all his assets and absconding.

LM produced her own version of my evidence dated 21 September. This was an internal document that was passed to DM. I did not see this document and did not become aware of it until after the trial in 1995 when the High Court Judge made references to all the documents that had persuaded him that there was a partnership dispute.

I discovered that LM had made alterations and additions to my proof of evidence dated 21 September. The alterations made references to a partnership dispute. The document was passed to DM who passed it on to Peter Arden [my barrister] on 28 September 1987. The document was headed “Instructions to Council to Advise in Conference on Monday 28 September.

The contents of the document produced by LM was used maliciously to make up all the documents sent to council and subsequently was used to make up the Affidavits.

The documents were used to influence the barrister to plead the case as a partnership dispute.

My instructions to the firm was dropped at this point and the firm concentrated on taking the case to trial in order to get the judge to declare that there were a partnership dispute.

AGLM took the case to trial which took place between: 3rd – 7th December 1990. In a letter written by DM dated 18 December 1990 he wrote “The trial of the partnership action has now been concluded”

The firm charged me £31,000 for their services. The legal action they took was completely useless and did not contribute in any way to furthering my cause.

I realised at that moment that I had been ripped off and wondered what I could do about it.

The property remained unsold:

My losses at this point were:
£18,000 proceeds of sale from my home stolen by Rodney
£31,000 completely useless legal action taken by AGLM.

I was back to square one, but it was now 1990 instead of 1987.

I took the firm to court for negligence, because although I suspected fraud I could not prove it at the time. I did not discover how they had managed to justify pleading the case as a partnership dispute until 1990 after the High Court Judgment.

I won the case against them for negligence, but was only offered £5 as nominal damages.

I appealed against the judgement in 1995 but the case was thrown out of court, because I had not pleaded fraud in the original action.

The firm had previously offered me £15,000 which I rejected. Because I was offered less in damages than the firm had offered me in compensation, by default I was liable for the full cost of the appeal which amounted to £90,000.

I was forced to pay the firm another £30,000 which was all I could raise or they would have taken my house away and sold it to recover the money.