Contract Law

RULE 4.228 OF THE INSOLVENCY RULES 1986

NOTICE TO THE CREDITORS OF AN INSOLVENT COMPANY OF THE RE-USE OF A PROHIBITED NAME

THE HARLEY MEDICAL CENTRE LIMITED
(Company Number 01728619)
I, Melvin Braham, of 11 Queen Anne Street, London W1G 9LJ was a Director of the above named company on the day it went into administration. I give notice that I am acting and intend to continue to act in one or more of the ways to which Section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, would apply if the above-maned Company were to go into insolvent liquidation connection with or for the purposes of, the carrying on of the whole or substantially the whole of the business of the above-named Company under the following name: Aesthetic and Cosmetic Surgery Limited trading as the Harley Medical Group

Did you receive a notice from Mr. Melvin Braham, Mr. Pierre Guillot or Ms. Louise Braham, in the terms set out above?

Are you an Irish client of The Harley Medical Group, with PIP breast implants?

What is this notice, you ask?

Read on.

The Insolvency Rules

Under the Rules contained in the UK Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2007, directors of companies such as The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. are obliged to publish a prescribed notice in the London Gazette

and

to notify every creditor of the company whose name and address is known [to the director] or is ascertainable by him on the making of such enquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances.

The Harley Medical Group was a trade mark of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. of 11 Queen Anne St. in London.

The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. went into administration in the UK on 9th November 2012. The administrators sold some or all of the business of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. to another company, Aesthetic and Cosmetic Surgery Ltd.

The “Harley” Notice

On 7th December 2012, Mr. Melvin Braham, Mr. Pierre Guillot and Ms. Louise Braham, all directors of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. and also directors of Aesthetic and Cosmetic Surgery Ltd., published a notice in the London Gazette in the form seen HERE.

The Liquidation of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd t/a The Harley Medical Group

Subsequently, as it happened, The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. went into insolvent liquidation. (It also changed its name to THMC Realisations (2012) Ltd.)

Clearly, the “Harley” notice was intended to comply with the terms of the UK Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2007 (seen HERE).

Did you receive the “Harley” notice?

McGarr Solicitors would like to hear from every Irish client of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. to check the extent of compliance of Mr. Melvin Braham, Mr. Pierre Guillot and Ms. Louise Braham with the UK Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2007.

EMAIL US!

We look forward to hearing from you by email at info@mcgarrsolicitors.ie

In the UK and Ireland, The Harley Medical Centre Ltd., trading as The Harley Medical Group, was a major seller and distributor of the defective PIP breast implants. The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd is currently before the Irish courts, looking to be put into liquidation. McGarr Solicitors is the only solicitors’ firm that has attended court for Irish PIP victims and argued for their clients’ interests in this application.

The Crime

1. The PIP criminal trial is currently at hearing in France.
2. McGarr solicitors act for a number of women victims of the PIP scandal. The scandal was the distribution and sale of sub-standard silicone breast implants. This post is a partial explanation of the current position of Irish PIP victims and related Irish legal activities.

The Harley Liquidation

1. The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. went into administration and then liquidation (and changed its name). This has all happened in the UK under the insolvency law of that jurisdiction.
2. The administrator promptly sold the business to, it appears, the shareholders of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. and they have continued the business in the same premises using a new company. That company is continuing the use of the trade name The Harley Medical Group. Its directors are the defunct directors of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.
3. There was an exception to the plan; the exception was in Dublin. The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. had a clinic at 5 Herbert Place in Dublin 2. We know this because it said so on its website. There was and is a plaque, effectively saying so, attached to the wall outside 5 Herbert Place. In addition, the contracts signed by Irish Harley customers stated that the contract was with The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.
4. It now appears that the leasehold interest in 5 Herbert Place Dublin 2 was held by another company, The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. Despite its name, this company was formed and registered in the British Virgin Islands.

The Harley Medical Group Dublin Liquidation

1. Now, this company also wishes to be liquidated. It had directors in common with The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. In other words, the two managements were the same.
2. It has chosen to apply for liquidation in Ireland, in the Irish High Court. In doing so it has claimed, in sworn testimony, that it is the entity that carried on the medical business conducted at 5 Herbert St. Dublin 2.
3. This is confusing. It also creates uncertainty; uncertainty as to the identity of the corporate body answerable to Irish Harley PIP victims.
4. Because The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. made this claim to the High Court, the court directed that McGarr Solicitors (and other firms also) be put on notice of the petition to wind up The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. McGarr Solicitors act for a number of Irish Harley PIP victims.

The Opposition to the Harley Dublin Liquidation

1. McGarr Solicitors have opposed the making of a winding up order for The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd.
2. In the UK, persons such as Harley PIP victims may, under UK law, apply to enforce their claims against any relevant insurance company carrying the Harley risk. This is not the case in Ireland.
3. So, if there is insurance cover for claims such as the PIP claims, and if each victim can prove damage and loss, it would be important to be able to make a claim against that insurer of Harley.
   
4. But which Harley would be the insured Harley? This question illustrates the damaging effect of the claim of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. Its claim that it is the company that sold and fitted defective breast implants to Irish women at least potentially undermines the right of those women to claim against the UK insurer of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.
5. As it happens, the claimed, indeed assumed, “right” of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. to be wound up by the Irish courts is not obvious. It is not obvious because Irish law includes EU law and under the relevant EU law the available evidence shows that the place where The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. might more properly be liquidated is the UK and not Ireland.
6. The available evidence shows, for instance, that the headed notepaper of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. recited that it had nineteen clinics, eighteen of which were in the UK. Oddly, they appear to be the same clinics that The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. had.
7. As it further happened, the lawyers for The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd., in submitting the petition to wind up The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. denied that the EU insolvency regulation applied to The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. and its petition. McGarr Solicitors disagree. We say the Regulation applies. We say that the available evidence establishes where the “centre of main interests” (“COMI”) for The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. is, and its COMI is in the UK. Consequently, we say, the Irish high court does not have jurisdiction to wind up The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. in “main proceedings”. That privilege lies with the UK courts. (Consequently, Irish PIP victims would then have the benefit of UK law and would be able to press any necessary claims against the insurance companies of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. as well as the claims against the insurers of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.).
8. These are the questions now being decided by the Irish High court. Judgment is expected in about a week.
9. Meanwhile, we are continuing our investigations of the insurance cover bought by The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. We are doing this through correspondence with the liquidator of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. Currently we believe that company was insured against claims such as those of Irish PIP victims. We have identified what we believe is the policy and the insurer that carried that risk

UPDATES:

The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd seek winding-up over implant claims
-8th April 2013
A report of the first day of hearing of the Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd’s directors’ application to the High Court to wind up the company.

The Harley Medical Group and PIP Victims’ claims
- 24th April 2013.
Discussion of what evidence we have relating to the insurance policies covering the Harley Medical Group.

Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd liquidation application
-29th April 2013
A report on the 2nd day of hearing of the Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd’s application to the High Court to wind up the company.

The Harley Medical Group- who are they really?
- 30th April 2013
A discussion of the issue of corporate identity around the companies using the trading name The Harley Medical Group.

The Harley Medical Group- Did you get this Notice?
-02nd May 2013
In Nov/Dec 2012 PIP victims might have received a legal notice from the former directors of the UK company the Harley Medical Centre Ltd. If you didn’t, we’d like to hear from you.

This post concerns a matter returnable before the Irish High Court on 8^th April 2013.

A company named The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. has applied to the court for an order compulsorily winding up the company. McGarr Solicitors, by order of the court, has been made a notice party to the application and has received copies of the application with its grounding affidavit and exhibits.

We are notice parties because we act for a number of women fitted in Ireland with PIP breast implants. These breast implants, notoriously, are substandard. They contain industrial grade silicone rather than medical grade silicone. They were manufactured in France but supplied to consumers in many jurisdictions.

One of the main suppliers in Ireland of PIP breast implants trades or traded as The Harley Medical Group from 5 Herbert Place, Dublin 2.

The Harley Medical Group is a trademark registered in the UK. It is owned by The Harley Medical Centre Ltd., a UK registered company, now in liquidation. The jurisdiction of that liquidation is the UK.

The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. is a company formed in the British Virgin Islands and with its registered office there.

In its application to the High Court, it is, effectively, claiming that its “centre of main interest” (“COMI”) is Ireland. Specifically, it claims that it, (and, by implication, not The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.) was the supplier of services, (and PIP breast implants), to Irish women, from 5 Herbert Place Dublin 2.

It is not possible for us to disclose, in this post, our intended response to the application to the High Court.

However, we understand that the Court has directed the applicant company to disclose details of the insurance cover it had for claims such as those made by Irish women fitted with PIP breast implants.

We share the Court’s concern and interest in that topic and expect, in due course, to report our full response to the application, under the privilege attaching to court reports.

With very little bother or trouble, the Oireachtas could and should remedy a real and persistent injustice for many injured persons.

In Hu -v- Duleek Formwork Ltd & Anor [2013 IEHC 50,  the High Court declined to make a declaration that the Plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of an insurance contract taken out by the insolvent Defendant company. The insurance company, Aviva, took issue with the Defendant’s failure to pay the excess of €1,000 which, as between the Defendant and Aviva, it was the Defendant’s liability to pay in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim.

Aviva would not be able to do this in the UK.

Mr Hu was injured due to the Defendant’s negligence and, it seems, breach of duty. The Defendant had paid a premium to Aviva and insured itself against claims such as that of Mr. Hu. It would have got its indemnity entitlement if it had not been insolvent. Its insolvency prevented it paying the excess. Mr. Hu offered to pay the excess but Aviva would have none of that. Consequently Mr. Hu is left without compensation for his serious personal injury and Aviva have escaped paying him because there is no person to make them do it.

More than 80 years ago the UK decided that exactly these instances of  the doctrine of privity of contract, which doctrine was in essence the basis of the Irish High court decision, were indefensible and insupportable in such circumstances. Recently the UK law was updated.

All we Irish have to do is to copy what the UK has done.

The past is still here. 80 years is no excuse for perpetrating injustice; it is an inexcusable injustice. Laziness and indifference are human faults not explanations.

Recent posts have been food oriented. If the posts or your food are, reportedly, sticking in your craw, you are using a figure of speech.

Humans do not have a craw, birds do. It is also known as the crop.

Just down the bird’s alimentary system is the gizzard. Food does not stick there. Chickens, for instance, store small pebbles in the gizzard to grind food, they not having teeth. It’s suggestive of their ancestry in the dinosaurs, some of whom swallowed rocks for the same purpose.

As a figure of speech to say something sticks in your craw is an old saying.

There was a time, recent in Ireland, where everybody had an intimate knowledge of the farmyard and they were familiar with the constitutions of chickens and their ways.

Now, entire industries can figuratively stick in our craw.

We are a firm of lawyers. Our website should deal with legal subjects. Hopefully, we do not lapse from that rule and, without going to the trouble of conducting an audit, we think we do not.

It’s a broad rule and allows us to write (polemically if necessary) about such diverse topics as road accidents,  accidents at work,  medical negligence,  planning act infringements and fingerprints.

We could, if necessary, even comment on Bilbo Baggins’ contract with the dwarves at the beginning of The Hobbit. (1)

Now this, we think, gives us a practical turn of mind. Admittedly, it is difficult to know what that means and I think its meaning varies from situation to situation, but it probably means that we expect to reach for and grasp finality, or, as they say in the USA, we expect to reach closure (for our client).

That militates against interest in reviews of the current state of the law but certainly does not exclude it; we read or write them if we need to do so, but they are not our reading of choice. (2)

It is possible that a certain interest we express, in probabilities, springs from this utilitarian approach. Sometimes this appears so clearly our client notices it; one such litigious client bought us a crystal ball because we had lamented (too often) we lacked one. (3)

Being practical also means being discreet. At the beginning of the US civil war in 1861, the newspapers published the Federal army’s plans for forthcoming movements, having got the information from the army’s generals. Undoubtedly, the sales of newspapers increased substantially in Richmond VA. We try to avoid equivalent mistakes.

We also know the difference between discreet and discrete, (otherwise we would be incomprehensible) and we try to avoid being that. In the same vein we distinguish our inferences  from perceived implications and we deplore the use of “presently” to mean “currently”.

We hope we can understand an opponent even, or particularly, where we disagree with him. Take the National Newspapers of Ireland, for example.  It is this writer’s contention that the NNI position on its claimed property rights in internet links may be an old and sad error; a failure to know and use the subjunctive  in writing or speech.

Be that as it may (4), such an error can end in trying to defend the indefensible and what lawyer, at least, wants to end there?

What is the subjunctive? It is one of the three moods of English verbs: the indicative, the imperative and the subjunctive. The subjunctive conveys ambivalence and uncertainty. (5)

NNI cannot deny the uncertainty of its position on links; it asked the Copyright Commission to remove the perceived (by NNI) uncertainty.

So, the original position of NNI was this:

“Were we to possess a property right in internet linking to our websites we would charge our notified rates”

Unfortunately if your journalists, particularly your editors, are unfamiliar with the subjunctive you will retreat to the indicative  or even the imperative: now you have rubbed everybody up the wrong way.

1. Bilbo lacked legal advice. Surely he was more like a consumer than a professional burglar, as Gandalf had described his role? Nowadays if you go white water rafting, say, the organisers must ensure that you will come through the experience unharmed.
2. This brings CPD (continuous professional development) to mind. We do our CPD quota of hours every year, and more besides. Otherwise, professionally, we are toast.
3. In due course, when the shop in which he bought it went out of business we lamented to him how unforeseeable it was (not least for the shop) that that would happen!
4. The subjunctive!
5. When Phillip of Macedon sent a message to the Spartans – “You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.”, they replied; “If.” 

This is the appropriate editorial to replace that of the Irish Times of 2nd February 2013.

The blame for Ireland’s faulty beef burgers lies with the relevant Irish meat processors and, maybe, with someone in Poland. The testing of the burgers showed two pertinent facts; the animal source of the burger content and the proportion coming from each animal type. Of the tested burgers, most contained trace elements of horse and/or pig. One did not. That one burger, from Silvercrest Foods Ltd., revealed that Silvercrest’s meat constituent of the burger was one third horse meat. The other burgers, with traces of adulteration, were evidence of contamination, probably from the factory machinery. The machinery, in its turn, must have been contaminated by the very same source as the Silvercrest  burger; the meat the processors had put through the machines and into the burgers. The fact that there were traces only in those other burgers was not a relief; it simply showed the adulteration had passed through the factory and was, or had been, in an earlier burger production run.

Why did it take the Minister so long to discover Silvercrest’s meat sources led to, inter alia, Poland?

The fact that the public does not know the full facts relating to the adulteration of its food is the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. It is unacceptable that the Minister persists in implying that unwittingly eating horse and pig meat is not a food safety issue. The public did not choose to eat horse or pig in the circumstances in which it ate those meats; the Minister is wrong to imply that the public does not know what is good for it, or that its loss of control over its food is not a big deal. Strictly, the Minister seems to think frozen burgers are fungible protein sources.

It is galling that Tesco is acting as the Minister should have acted; applying severe but appropriate sanctions to the guilty. Of what is Silvercrest guilty? It, reputedly, breached its contract with Tesco. It was limited under that contract to sourcing its meat from Irish or British suppliers. That contract would not have failed to stipulate that the meat was to be beef meat. When Silvercrest supplied Tesco it knew that the burgers, or some of them, were not in accordance with contract. Every such supply to Tesco involved a misrepresentation by Silvercrest. Unwittingly, presumably, Tesco in its turn misrepresented the contents of the burgers to its customers. In fact each of those misrepresentations was really a misrepresentation of Silvercrest to each consumer. Tesco was just a conduit of the falsehood. To suggest that this was a failure of quality control is, to be charitable, poor judgement. What Tesco describes as a “breach of trust” is clearly a breach of contract and a breach of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. It is an unsettled point whether it was also a breach of Section 42 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007.

It is disturbing that the Polish authorities are challenging the Silvercrest and Ministerial narrative of events. If Poland is not the source of the horse meat, what is the Minister going to do about that, resigning aside?

Noted in the Irish Times, 2nd February 2013, page 15.

 “With no evidence of fraud…”

This phrase means there was no evidence of deceit by Silvercrest Foods Ltd. There was in fact deceit. Tesco was deceived as to the sources of the burger meat; it described it as a breach of trust.

My online dictionary defines “fraud” as:

“a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities”

When the Food Safety Authority of Ireland tested a range of Irish frozen beef burgers, purchased from Irish and British supermarkets, it found evidence that they contained horse meat and/or pig meat.

It found that the source of the offending meat was the respective manufacturer of the beef burger. In the case of Silvercrest Foods Ltd. almost 30% of one burger constituted horse meat.

These facts were sufficient evidence to prosecute the various manufacturers (and the retailers).

Prosecutions are necessary because of the overriding objective of securing the safety of consumer food in the EU. If you are a manufacturer it is easy to ensure the safety of the food produced in your factory; you make sure that your sources are safe.If you fail to do this you should be prosecuted.

Under EU law Ireland is obliged to prosecute for breaches of EU law and the known facts were evidence of breaches of EU law and Irish law. The person responsible for ensuring there are prosecutions is the Minister for Agriculture and Food. That means there will be no prosecutions because he has shown he does not agree with the law.

He thinks that negligence is insufficient to get a conviction or even to bring a prosecution. He implies that proving knowing and deliberate adulteration of food is what is required to bring a prosecution and get a conviction but this is not and should not, be the case.

His is the latest in a long line of Irish failures. Ireland is an extreme example of a noted problem; regulatory capture. When a regulated industry (such as banking) exerts sufficient influence, its regulator becomes its champion and defender instead of its regulator.

Here we go again.

Horse meat: An additive to burgers. It is perceptible only by means of DNA testing and/or the use of an electron microscope (except in France where its very colour, taste and hooves trigger the little grey cells of French sleuths).

Money back Guarantee: If you return your complete horse meat beef burger, with its wrapping and a receipt, or other indubitable evidence of purchase from our supermarket, you will receive back your money that you paid to buy the burger in the first place.

Seriously: As in “…we take the safety of our products very seriously…”. We take offence if anyone challenges what we say about our products.

Statement: As in “…issued a statement…” A defence of Irish beef processors by the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

Additive: Stuff found in [Irish, possibly all] beef burgers.

Consumers: People who destroy evidence of wrongdoing by eating beef burgers.

Microscopic: The size of the horse meat portion of Irish beef burgers.

Label: A statement of our sincere beliefs about the contents of our burgers. (Also; A statement of affairs relayed to us by others and sincerely believed by us.)

Accidental: The finding of absence of fraud, malice or greed as will be reached by the investigation, the parameters of which are almost settled.