Carrie James: Challenging Her Excessive Legal Costs

Many of you may be familiar with High Street GRP, a property investment company that secured over £126,000,000 from more than 1,500 Loan Note Holders. However, the situation took a negative turn when these holders stopped receiving returns. As a result, numerous individuals reached out to us for assistance in recovering their investments. Consequently, the company went into administration two years ago.

In a pursuit of justice and transparency, I&L has been diligently working to obtain essential information through legal proceedings against the Administrators, Carrie James and Tony Hyams for High Street GRP Ltd (HSG). This information is crucial to bring legal proceedings against several key parties. Including Gary Forrest (GF) Director of HSG and Steven Knight (SK) Director of Castle Trust and Management Services Ltd (CTMS). Our goal is to hold these parties accountable. And protect the interests of loan note holders who have suffered significant losses.

Extortionate Costs

The legal journey began with an application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order. A court order compelling one party to disclose vital information about another party. While our application was set for a court hearing in August, both parties’ solicitors managed to reach an agreement before the hearing took place. This resulted in an Order by Consent. This obligated I&L to cover reasonable costs incurred by the Administrators’ solicitors in the application process and the compliance with the Order.

However, the shock came when we received the statement of costs from Carrie James’s solicitors, amounting to an astounding £21,231.50. This figure is far beyond what could be justified. Especially when comparing it to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) guideline hourly rates. The rates applied by the Administrators’ solicitors for Grade A and B were more than double the SRA’s guidelines. Additionally, the time spent was excessively high.

We have challenged these inflated costs and offered to pay reasonable costs. Yet, Carrie James refuses to resolve this issue and continues to insist on the exorbitant figure.

It’s important to note that further costs will be incurred by the Administrators in complying with the Order. And we anticipate these costs to be excessive and potentially obstructive.

In essence, the Administrators are demanding an unjustified sum for a seemingly straightforward disclosure, which raises questions about their intentions. We believe that these costs are deliberately inflated to deter us from pursuing the Order for disclosure.

Our Goal

Our goal is simple: act in the interest of loan note holders and not protect GF, SK, CTMS, the insurer, and other parties. We are determined to challenge the Administrators to reduce these costs to a reasonable amount and provide the required disclosure.

The Administrators have now hinted at the likelihood of transitioning from administration to compulsory liquidation, a significant step occurring two years after the initial entry into administration. Our Director, Peter Murray, had foreseen this turn of events from the beginning and had encouraged all loan note holders to vote in favour of compulsory liquidation.

This issue is far from resolved, and we are even considering filing a formal complaint with the Administrators’ regulators. However, we recognise the challenges involved in that avenue, given Carrie James’s previous leadership role within the regulatory body. Nevertheless, we remain unwavering in our commitment to pursuing justice. These documents, once disclosed, will be the key to initiating legal proceedings against those responsible for the loan note holders’ losses.

In conclusion, we will not relent in our pursuit of justice. We remain dedicated to the interests of loan note holders and will do everything in our power to ensure that the truth comes to light and accountability is established.