Willmett Solicitors believed to be in administration

Dec 2, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Get Wokingham

Willmett Solicitors based in Reading and Woodley is believed to have gone into administration.

Comments
601 - 620 of 1,193 Comments Last updated Monday Jul 28
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#865
Sep 4, 2011
 
It has been suggested – by a critic of Mawer no less – that all those who have been affected by the machinations of Kevin Mawer, perhaps air their grievances in a new dedicated forum. The man and wife victims of Mawer and presumably others have no knowledge of how to execute this.

Reading past posts, it has also been noted, that some readers who have a vested interest in Willmett’s – but in other individuals attached to the firm in some form or another - are disgruntled at the emphasis currently being given to Kevin Mawer.

Whilst this appears understandable, one point to consider in regard to Willmett’s; its partners or alleged fraudsters, is there cannot be any current or developing news on the individuals they hate. In spite of this lack of news on others, Kevin Mawer therefore MUST be considered extremely relevant to this forum. For the record, whilst he did not start out as Willmett’s originally appointed administrator, it is an indisputable fact that he and his partner at KPMG formally made an application on 16 December 2009 in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division of Manchester District Court, to have the original administrator OUSTED – by all accounts a very competent man named Roderick Withenshaw of Royce Peeling Green. As a consequence, Kevin Mawer was installed as Willmett’s administrator.

Furthermore as it is another indisputable fact that Kevin Mawer is the administrator of a property company often criticized on this forum, by its alleged involvement to a former partner of Willmett’s. So surely anyone – regardless of their viewpoint – should be mightily interested in how the administration of Willmett’s is, well.., being administrated?

All victims of Kevin Mawer are asking is that readers and posters are patient and realise the extreme significance of the posts regarding his current behaviour, which clearly shows no signs of abating.
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#866
Sep 4, 2011
 
On the above note, there seems to be stillness as to the progress of Willmett’s actual administration, so perhaps some updates might be beneficial from anyone in the know?
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#867
Sep 4, 2011
 
In response to the posters who appeared annoyed at the Mawer poster’s, who are becoming confused between the technicalities and differentials between an ‘IP’ address, as opposed to a 'location address', perhaps they should put themselves in their shoes? Read post 858 in particular before it’s removed: this kind of persecution does make the persecuted feel like the're on the verge of madness. It’s a very unenviable position to be in, and really rather sad.
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#868
Sep 4, 2011
 
This is a direct message to the originator of post #843: Fins bury square.
Speaking confidently on behalf of all of Kevin Mawer’s demoralised victims, thank God that someone in the industry possesses the guts to stand up against the former Grant Thornton Partner. To reveal the names of two senior partners, who seemingly played a part in Kevin’s departure from their firm, is courageous and only goes to prove, that some rivals of KPMG are not so easily intimidated.
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#869
Sep 4, 2011
 
When analyzing the posts about Kevin Mawer’s new position at Begbies Traynor, there is something that doesn’t quite ring true.

It is a fact that a piece appeared on page 7 of last weeks edition of Insolvency News entitled,“KPMG director in shock move to Begbies”. It starts out by saying that “Kevin Mawer has resigned his position as a director of KPMG to join insolvency and restricting practice Begbies Traynor.” It goes on to quote an apparent statement from KPMG, in what many will view as strange comment. It reads,“KPMG confirmed his [Mawer’s] resignation telling Insolvency Today that Mawer had been placed on gardening leave until the end of September.”

‘Gardening leave’? Is that really an appropriate remark, and one that a company of KPMG’s stature would make?

The article expands further stating,“His [Mawer’s] resignation follows allegations made by local press in Yorkshire that Mawer had been dismissed from the firm, but a spokesperson from KPMG said there was no current evidence of wrongdoing.”

There is something decidedly wrong about this article. Again, irrespective of the reasons for a former employer’s departure – even one with a chequered history like Mawer - would the likes of KPMG really be drawn into formalizing a comment to the press about alleged ‘wrongdoing’?

Does anyone know of the authenticity of the article, or whether any formal representations have been made to Insolvency News, or KPMG about the author’s authenticity?
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#870
Sep 4, 2011
 
Looking at MawerMawerMawer’s post #857, they question,“Why are Begbies still saying they have no idea whether he [Mawer] is joining them?” The poster alludes that the article in Insolvency News concerning Kevin Mawer’s apparent move to Begbies, was perhaps a ruse, put about by someone to make it appear in the Defendants CMC meeting last week that Mawer was ‘currently’ employed. Presumably the poster is indicating that the Defendant had plans to bring to the courts attention that Mawer was perhaps currently ‘unemployed’? If this is true – that he is unemployed – in all probability, the Judge would have allowed the unrepresented Defendant to ask Mawer to confirm to the court, that if he was no longer working for KPMG, why was he still engaged in representing KPMG in court at the CMC?

Crucially, wouldn’t the Defendant have had the automatic right to ask Mawer – regardless of the 3 lawyers and QC acting for KPMG - to confirm whether his departure from the Company, was in any way connected to his conduct and handling of the legal case against him?

No wonder it's being argued that the Defendant's basic rights are being thwarted at every level.

Can anyone shed light on this conundrum? It demands further exploration.

Since: Aug 11

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#871
Sep 5, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Your last posting, Victims of Mawer, is the key - of course I genuinely cannot really believe that KPMG would be involved in a ruse of pretending someone was moving somewhere if they were not, just for a court case. I therefore think that it may just be he is joining in a month's time or something and that the systems are not updated at Begbies (or that they are told not to say anything). Odd but not impossible,

But this stuff about Begbies did appear in the day or two before the case last Thursday as the posts here bear out. If he was about to be questioned on his departure in Court, it would be quite easy if you have representation for a third party to allude to this piece or to make sure that it is seen. At the very least, the release of it appears to have been designed for the Court.
unbiased

Sheffield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#872
Sep 6, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

1

As someone who knows the profession but not the individuals referred to, I am amazed and concerned at the willingness to trash reputations with unspecified references to cases. There may or may not be a good case behind your allegations. Maybe you have come across a baddie - or maybe he has just been aggressuvely trying to realise money for creditors - sometimes getting it rught, other times wrong, and making enemies in the process wh want to get back at him. There are proper processes for investigating such complaints. I understand that some of these are costly and time consuming and usung a public site is not but doesn't get you anywhere if not specific. Let the open minded judge for themselves. Quote the names and copy official reports of the cases and all these exposees that are supposedly to appear in the press -refer to where they are or at least precisely what has been sent to and accepted as proven by the press.. Otherwise it's unfair and futile to just damn people saying you have absolute proof they are corrupt or liars or worse - and equaly futile - all their defenders can do is assert the opposite - it is for those claiming proven wrong-doing in a public site to be explicit with names of cases and open references to that claimed proof.
I have no connection with any named party but an interested observer. I have no intention of multiple postimgs like some, and I see that others un the past trying to bring balance have been met with abuse - if that's the way you want to conduct your campaign it speaks vo;umes about what may lie behund this. If on the hand you are able and willing to be specific on the above, and the irrefutable proof is specified then you should be able to get unbiased support from those who knoe the profession.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#873
Sep 6, 2011
 
Wonderful too

Hanoi, Vietnam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#874
Sep 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Created for children to thinking organization with a simple event, created for children between 6 and older have well-organized thinking is to give children a habit of simple events, such as how to organize and decorate a birthday, there may be lists is inviting the children and sort objects decorate a birthday cake with the details simple but striking and beautiful.
Create excitement at decorating for children, how to decorate a room and create a warm atmosphere for birthdays.

View more http://maynongcu.info
Say No Mawer

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#876
Sep 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

Post 872, you are probably well-meaning but awfully naïve, and certainly don’t appear to have the caliber required of a typical accountant, let alone an insolvency practitioner. If, as you suggest, it was so simple to obtain unbiased support from those who know the profession, had it not occurred to you that the support you speak of will have already been attempted, and way back in proceedings? Another point for you to contemplate is that if the cases, Kevin Mawer has spent time strategically constructing against his intended were so straightforward, he would have no need to manipulate the due process of law? That's one of the reasons they take years to get to the stage of a trial. It is indeed a sad reflection of some of the murky grey areas of the civil justice system in this Country, but rest assured that sometimes, a legal result in a civil case does in no way mean, it is a true reflection of events. The most relevant point that needs to be considered by any other do-gooders is, if the directors, bankrupts or individuals he accuses of wrongdoings were guilty of such misconduct resulting in him eventually charging them with misfeasance (invariably after they refuse an out of court settlement with him), they would undoubtedly (and rightfully) be charged instead with a criminal offense, namely MALFEASANCE.

Just. So. You. Comprehend. The. Enormity. Malfeasance charges can only be heard in a CRIMINAL court. As has been referred to recently on this forum, there is a GREATER BURDEN OF PROOF to establish in a criminal case, so given Kevin Mawer’s past record, he is not inclined to instigate criminal charges against anyone. Aside from being unqualified in criminal proceedings, if he were rumbled once a Trial began, he would pay a penalty, not least of which could result in him being indicted with perjury. Moreover, he would need to contemplate performing before an independent group of men and woman, otherwise known as a JURY. Wouldn’t. Couldn’t. Happen.

You need to understand the acute differences between that of a civil case and a criminal one and why certain practitioners favour one over the other. It is about a result, potentially resulting in financial gains for the accuser. Thankfully all practitioners are not cut from the same cloth as Mawer, but if you really think that an accuser like the one discussed here is acting in the interest of retrieving monies for a bankrupts creditors, you must be exceptionally naïve.

Hopefully you get the point, but it’s doubtful. You’re lack of empathy and pithy contemplation is insulting to those who have suffered, and continue to suffer at the hands of this man. The harrying and discrimination doesn’t just start and end with his subjects. They have wives, partners, children and parents who financially depend upon them, who are also devastated by the wrath of one man.
unbiased

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#878
Sep 6, 2011
 
post 877 - quite so. i'm not going to get into a slanging match. if you think i'm naive then check with a competent lawyer or ip
-is it the job of an ip to get money in for creds or to pursue criminal actions if there is a civil option.
-is it not just as much perjury to lie in a civil case
More to the point you / others have not given the speifics that I , and any independent observer would need to form a view. if the enemies / victims think that, and the whole tone of many posts helps your case then so be it. it certainly does not engender empathy. Over and out.

Since: Aug 11

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#879
Sep 6, 2011
 
I don't think that Misfeasance is heard in a criminal court. It is surely a civil matter. Hopefully this thread will soon develop with more actual facts - I think that this is likely to happen in the next few weeks as the extraordinary facts about the most recent case are almost bound to become public.

I say again. Mawer's entire case against this director collapsed because of his failures, because he tried to suppress evidence, because he appeared unable to spot large sums in the bank account which had supposedly been diverted, and because he placed words in the mouth of the Director. These failures caught him out, both within KPMG and in the context of a courtroom.

Since: Aug 11

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#880
Sep 6, 2011
 
There is also a clear line developing here with 'new posters' saying "there are no facts, we need them to give this thread credibility". I'm afraid that this looks like a collective diversionary activity by a few 'new' people. They themselves are hidden identities, and are clearly trying to protect Mawer's reputation for a reason.

All of you can find out the details of this case, you have the date and the venue, but it is interesting that those who comment like this do not ever say anything about it or refer to it, the case which actually saw Mawer out through the door at KPMG Leeds.
Say No Mawer

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#881
Sep 6, 2011
 
Unbiased 878, you must be a sensitive soul. As for your advice to check with a competent lawyer or IP, don't you think with the mentioning of CMC's and Trials already having taken place, is it not a given that Mawer's adversaries have already been down that route? You have missed the point entirely of the legalities between civil cases as opposed to criminal. A civil judge presides over a civil case in a civil hearing. A criminal judge presides over a criminal case (with a jury) in a criminal hearing. Both courts constitutionally separated by two entirely sets of ancient legal rules, with the civil courts being guided by both Insolvency Rules as well as Crown Prosecution Rules. You appear to be overlooking the motive of an IP taking on the role of an administrator or trustee. In an effort to reclaim monies for any creditors an IP can only go the civil route (fact). If the IP has any measure of success, their fees and disbursements are deducted first, before any creditor. That's. How. They. Earn. Their. Company's. Monies. Alternatively, if there is any real evidence of criminality, the police become involved. If the CPS believe there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the accused is formally charged. In this event, the CROWN take over, signaling the end of the IP's involvement and the firm they work for. This. Way. The. Criminal. Way. They. Earn. No. Monies. Any clearer?
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#882
Sep 6, 2011
 
Recap: Writing in response to MawerMawerMawer’s collective posts, as far as #857 is concerned, it appears to suggest that the Defendant they refer to appeared before a CMC last Thursday (1 Sept) in his capacity as a director of a limited company. Kevin Mawer is the administrator of said company AND was appearing in his capacity as the Applicant, and on behalf on KPMG. It is widely known that Mawer departed KPMG sometime in June, and according to sources on here, at the beginning of last week, there was no word of any new employment/position. Unexpectedly, only the day BEFORE the CMC (31 Aug), an article conveniently appeared in Insolvency News regarding Mawer’s,“Shock move to Begbies”..

Irrespective of whether Mawer does take up residency at Begbies sometime in the future, is it more than a tentative suggestion from MawerMawerMawer that the sudden announcement of Mawer’s ‘move’ to Begbies, was nothing less than an outward show? Strategically designed, to give the impression that Mawer would be in ‘current’ employment, when appearing at the CMC? As outlandish as this seems, if there is any truth in these allegations, the shrewdness behind such an execution, must have been with the sole intention to prevent any humiliation for the Applicant, and his former employer? But, why go to such lengths, and what are they so keen to suppress? Surely it cannot be just about pursuing the individual for monetary gain? If the Defendant is representing himself, the presumptive is that, as he has NO financial means to employ legal counsel, he is therefore certainly not in a position to pay any of the Applicants accruing legal fees either, should they ultimately win with the [amended] claim against him?
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#883
Sep 6, 2011
 
Another interesting point to consider is: given the original claim has been withdrawn by the Applicant – and irrespective of the [amended] claim in regard to last weeks CMC - what happens exactly in regard to the substantive legal fees amassed by the Applicants, insofar as the ORIGINAL claim is concerned?

Do they Applicants stand for these, or are they ‘carried-forward’ forming part of the amended claim? Does anyone know the legal corollary on this atypical area under discussion?
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#884
Sep 6, 2011
 
From what can be garnered from MawerMawerMawer’s post #834, the original claim against the Defendant - for misfeasance - was for in excess of £1million, but this claim was withdrawn. There does not appear to be any details regarding the amount of the amended claim, but in post #858, its states that Kevin Mawer’s former employers have spent a staggering “£500,000” in costs and internal spending so far, which the poster maintains,“is FAR MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM”.

Again, this begs the question, why CONTINUE with an amended claim, which although less than the sums involved in the original claim, is LESS than the legal fees already amassed, and which are bound to increase even further?
Victims of Mawer

Heanor, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#885
Sep 6, 2011
 
How To Ruin A Person in 20 Easy Steps:
1. The Defendant destroys the original claim resulting in its withdrawal, except….
2. The Defendant is unable to have the original claim ‘struck-out’
3. Seemingly there are no legal penalties to the Applicant, regarding their failed original claim
4. The Applicant brings in an amended claim, costing upwards of some £20,000 in legal fees for a CMC
5. The £20,000 legal fees will be attributed to the Defendant, should the Applicant secure a Judgment Order
6. It is claimed the Applicants overall fees incurred so far, ostensibly stand in excess of £500,000
7. The self-representing Defendant continues to deny, and contest the Applicants amended claim
8. Any future court appearances will incur additional legal bills for the Applicant
9. With ease, the Applicant’s legal team cruise through the court system via ‘legal due processes’, and without the burden of a legal adversary
10. The Defendant eventually exhausts his [own] attempts as a self-litigant
11. A Trial date is set
12. The Applicant’s legal team attempt to secure a ‘pre-Trial’[financial] settlement from the Defendant
13. A ‘pre-Trial’ financial settlement is impossible, because the Defendant is already insolvent
14. As the case is held in a ‘civil’ court, the Defendant has NO access to Legal Aid
15. The Trial proceeds, and the Defendant has NO legal representation
16. Slam-Dunk, Trial over in minutes and Judgment Order is granted – in favour of the Applicant
17. Defendant is shortly thereafter made bankrupt: by the Applicant
18. A Trustee – of Applicant’s choice - is appointed to administer bankrupts/Defendants estate
19. Applicant then becomes a CREDITOR of the bankrupt – in regard to legal bills incurred; pursuing HIM
20. Defendant/Bankrupt is finally ruined

There are NO MONIES to be gained from seeing this through to its logical conclusion? So, WHY go to all this trouble? Not only would this be a monumental abuse of the legal system, but a solitary individual who’s right to be heard, is being trampled on spectacularly. Momentously, a Judgment Order would simply enable the Applicant – and future Trustee – guaranteed autonomy over their opponent (read as another ‘Victim of Mawer’). How can this possibly be classed as justice in a civilised democracy?

The ultimate victory would be for the IP in question, not his former employer, yet he’s the one who is no longer working for his old company. Although hitherto, continues to be employed in the insolvency sector? It is nothing short of a travesty and everyone reading this knows it.

Since: Aug 11

Cardiff, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#886
Sep 6, 2011
 
The last post 885 does indeed sum it up. And because the costs have been in the region of half a million (KPMG's own time charged is now around a quarter of a million I understand + lawyers etc), and the new claim is for much less than the abandoned claim for £1.4 million (and I gather a lot less than the money spent on it so far).

I agree with VictimsofMawer, what on earth can be the justification for all of this? Why, if not for some hidden reason. Their whole claim collapses, so they then spend six months, use a QC and a newly appointed top City firm of lawyers, just to rescue their claim by creating a completely new one about things never discussed before.

And this shambles, of course, is down to the one man, Kevin Mawer - who is on 'gardening leave' from KPMG and was put there at exactly the time when his failures in this case were fully uncovered and KPMG and its QCs and lawyers took control to protect themselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••