This file reproduces all of the interlocutors issued to the date of proof in July 2011.
One of the great mysteries of this litigation has always been how Mr. Simpson’s time and line account could have been allocated the Process No. 6 in the Inventory of Process. The Court did not even order Mr. Simpson to have the account produced until Lord Kingarth’s 7 February 1997 interlocutor at which time, according to a preceding interlocutor (issued 19 December 1996) a document had already been received by the Court and marked No.8 of Process.
Curiously Mr. Dobie’s first account was lodged earlier than Mr. Simpson’s and it was given Process No. 12. Refer to Interlocutors 19.12.96 to 28.03.97.
Much later in the action, at a time when Arakin had no legal representative, Andrew McNamara (acting as an assignee to represent Arakin’s interests) did bring our concerns re certain documents contained in the Inventory of Process to the attention of the court. In response an interlocutor was issued by Lord MacKay dated Interlocutor 6th March 2002 which allowed a hearing on the matters outlined therein.
The hearing was a debacle (due to our inexperience) however Lord MacKay finds Lady Smith’s findings difficult to reconcile with the interlocutors stating at paragraph 13 of his 2006 opinion, ‘If, as Lady Smith held, the account of expenses, which now constitutes No. 6 of Process, had been lodged in process on 23 October 1996, it is unclear why Lord Kingarth should have been invited to order that time and line accounts be submitted [on 7th February 1997], before being remitted to the Auditor for taxation.’