Dozens of small businesses suffer after Halliwells’ collapse

  • Print
  • Comments (19)

Readers' comments (19)

  • No doubt the Cock crowed thrice and Austin and Craig denied the firm was going into administration thrice. They then had a damn good feed. May their arteries harden from the copious amounts of free crisps they consumed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolutely disgusting. From what I've heard, Heatons are regretting taking on the dross that is Mr Austin in the wake of his 'woe is me' exclusive. Perhaps he can use those 'free' sandwiches to comfort-eat away the unhappiness caused by his new colleagues abhorrence towards him. It's all coming out on Halliwells now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I feel sorry for the small business affected by this, but really, if Halliwells had unpaid bills going back to November last year, together with rumblings of insolvency, perhaps Mr Randhawa should have thought twice before carrying on supplying them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite a lot of one man businesses - i.e. various barristers - have also been left unpaid

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I've heard of several cases where counsels' fees and other disbursements were billed to clients, clients paid bills but counsel etc never got paid. Wonder where that money went.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • isn't that a matter for the SRA?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ...and just like the Administrator, no mention here of the £20 million reverse premium which the equity partners of Halliwells ran off with and which, if they were decent human beings, they would pay back to the taxpayer. And the ruling class of this country has a nerve, in an attempt to divide and rule the working classes, to have a go at people who are too sick, old or disabled to work! I know who I would round up at dawn.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ref Anonymous 20 September 2010 at 3:53pm, that's really big of you to have a go at a small business, oh “but really”. Mr Randhawa deserves our support , not your silly remarks. Lawyers should be fighting for people like him instead of rolling over to big business. Mr Randhawa was an honest man who would never have treated people the way the greedy equity partners of Halliwells treated him. Are you going to criticise the College of Law who were owed nearly half a million pounds, or is it just the little people you attack? Also, what about all of the FSMs of Halliwells who parted with their own money, and all of the solicitors who kept working for Halliwells even though it was obvious to all that the place was going down the toilet? Are you going to have a go at them too? To quote Mark Twain in reply to your pathetic comment , "it is better to keep your mouth shut and to appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt". I sincerely hope you are not a solicitor but I fear, you probably are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jo - Get off your high horse. I am not "having a go" at the little people. It is good business sense when, if you have large unpaid bills going back a year, to reconsider supplying said business. And, yes, that goes for the College of Law too. I agree that the whole Halliwells situation is disgusting, but jumping on the bandwagon and complaining about unpaid bills a year after the fact is a bit much.

    Grow up.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jo - I quite agree.
    @Anonymous - you strike me as being a lawyer with little experience of business and just the ability to look at businesses / clients with the view: "I would never have been that stupid". Even if you have a point, I suggest it would be more appropriate to keep such views to yourself on a public message board. What Halliwells did to this businessman was disgraceful and as a lawyer you should be roundly condemning such behaviour, not shifting the blame.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous @5.03pm re clients paying for counsel's fees
    If the client has paid the solicitor for counsel's fees then surely that is client money? In which case it should be there in the client account. If it isnt then that is a matter The Lawyer should be investigating very seriously. If it is true then something was badly amiss.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vercingetorix: you'd have thought so wouldn't you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Talk about "have your cake and eat it"!
    Charging £319.00 for some crisps, satay and chicken is pretty pricey and no wonder they went bankrupt.
    You should be ashamed of your self Mr Randhawa. Something like crisps, chicken and satay would cost about a fiver up north!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Satay is not available oop north

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I wonder - are Salford University on the list?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Alex Gill & Bladdy Norveners:
    I'm sure it mentioned somewhere that the sandwiches were supplied by a London shop. But perhaps your prejudice blinded you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • it's been a long time since i studied commercial law, but my recollection is that if a partnership went down the partners personally were jointly and severally liable for the debts, and if a company traded and ran up debts whilst insolvent, the directors ditto. So - have a go creditors. I'm sure the ex-partners or directors of halliwell could probably scrape a few bob together

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not all that long ago, when solicitors were in a profession, not the grubby trade it now is, leaving one's suppliers (including St Johns for goodness sake) in the lurch would have been treated as gross misconduct unbefitting a member of the (former) profession and the partners would have been struck off.
    These days in modern Britain, it is probably regarded as rather clever to behave like that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Val - I'm surprised you admit to having studied commercial law at all.
    Firstly - Halliwell's isn't a partnership it is an LLP. Therefore the members have limited liability and are not joint and severally liabile for the debts of the business.
    Secondly you then mix up partners with directors - partners are principals in a partnership and directors are officers of a limited company. The people you refer to are actually members of an LLP.
    I agree with the sentiment of your comment that (some of) the members of Halliwells LLP have acted badly but the law, as drafted, doesn't allow any easy remedy.
    The quality of legal opinion in the comments on this story is woeful. No wonder law firms are in the state they are in.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (19)