ACCURATELY identifying the boundary between two properties often requires specialist knowledge.
The red line drawn around a property on the Land Registry plan shows only the general boundary. It does not identify whether the boundary runs along the centre of a hedge or along one side of it.
AS AN accountant in general practice for over 20 years, I have come across commercial disputes in a variety of forms: between partners, shareholders, family members and trade competitors.
Disputes can become protracted, costly to settle and eventually result in a solution which satisfies neither party. However, there are alternatives which can offer a straightforward and structured method for the resolution of commercial disputes, and I am actively engaged in three of them.
IN THE same way that many lay people do not recognise the various expertise among lawyers, many lawyers do not understand the work that accountants do or, more importantly, how expert accountants might help.
We hear all sorts of descriptions used for expert accountants in legal matters: forensic accountants, expert witness accountants, accountants in litigation support or accountants offering dispute resolution services. With the exception of accountants who might be trained in other disciplines, such as arbitration and mediation, the main area where legal disputes will need the services of the accountant expert are in matters of money.
GENE MORRISON WAS an expert – an expert in convincing the unwary that he could provide them with reliable professional evidence for use in court. He claimed expertise in psychology, fire investigation, fingerprints and other specialisms. He had credible qualifications in none of them, making his living with the aid of purchased degrees, gullible contacts and creative use of the internet. In the meantime, the legal aid budget, and doubtless the pockets of some individual clients, became many pounds the lighter.
In February Morrison was convicted of fraud and sentenced to five years. But what of those who were taken in – clients who relied on him to help their case and solicitors who might have been expected to rely on more than word of mouth, anecdote, smooth talk and, doubtless, misleading advertisements? Should they all have been taken in?
We all know something about employment, don’t we? Maybe we know more about our own area of the employment market than about the generality, but everybody has some knowledge, or can access it.
As an eminent judge once asked me: “Why do I need your evidence when I can see the claimant before me and make an assessment of him, and I can get earnings data from The New Earnings Survey?”
