Auhua Clean Share Discussion Threads

[davius] 30/7/2010 15:49

Autofocus will have insurance cover indemnifying them against this sort of thing. The insurers will pay out if the situation is resolved in favour of Accident Exchange.

[treble b] 30/7/2010 15:30

so question, how will it work if they can't find a buyer... what happens with AX's claim and potential finacial settlement?

[wilba] 30/7/2010 12:26

So for any company caught the wrong side of the till. "Thats ok just declare Chapter 11 and all bets are off".

I know it's ok for MP's expenses but i didn't think that applied to the real world.

The focus surely will then be directly against the BOD?

Interesting if nothing else.

Anyone out there with any corporate legal knowledge.???

[sir brainy] 30/7/2010 12:07

Wilba - 30 Jul'10 - 09:00 - 7074 of 7075

Why go into administration unless they knew it would break them?

It's a thin line sometimes between a BOD agreeing that a company is solvent and can trade or is insolvent and should go into administration - ie judgment is called for, projections of future cashflows need to be made etc.

So going into administration for cos on the edge can legitimately be decided upon whenever the BOD see fit.

Now here comes chronology.

Autofocus have gone bust. Currently they owe ACE diddly squat.

They can pay off staff & directors.

There will be nothing left in the kitty IF (big if) ACE win anything - and don't give me the indemnity insurance argument, the policy will be worth peanuts.

[wilba] 30/7/2010 09:13

Companies house info.

Note:

Different registered address to web site contact address. And previous / next accounts due dates.

Name & Registered Office:
AUTOFOCUS LTD
CLIFTON HOUSE
BUNNIAN PLACE
BASINGSTOKE
HAMPSHIRE
RG21 7JE
Company No. 04539207





Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 18/09/2002

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7414 - Business & management consultancy

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2008 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 30/09/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 18/09/2009
Next Return Due: 16/10/2010

Last Members List: 18/09/2009

Previous Names:
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years

[wilba] 30/7/2010 09:00

Also note this was about to be stated..

"The trial window for the long-awaited legal battle between credit hire organisation Accident Exchange and reporting firm Autofocus is likely to be decided by the High Court next month".

Why go into administration unless they knew it would break them?

[wilba] 30/7/2010 08:56

Please note the following:

Extract from AF RNS statement above:

The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, Autofocus is pleased that Accident Exchange has conceded and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that this issue remains at large, for the trial Judge to decide. Autofocus will therefore be able to rely on the witness immunity rule as a defence to Accident Exchange's claims at trial.

Extracts from ACE RNS statement:

That appeal was heard by The Court of Appeal on 9 June 2010 and judgment was
handed down this morning by Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Vice President of the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). We are pleased to report that the appeal by
Autofocus has been dismissed.

Further:

Steve Evans, Chief Executive said:

"We are delighted with the judgment
from the Court of Appeal because it now allows for the hearing of the
substantive issues of our claim in open court to be resumed after a delay of six
months. We are also encouraged with the judgment in Stewart where, for the first
time in one of these cases, we have a Judge confirming that the Autofocus
evidence given in that case led to the trial Judge accepting a fictitious spot
rate figure as the basis for making his judgment.

[wilba] 30/7/2010 08:49

Accident Exchange Group Plc
("the Company")

UPDATE ON AUTOFOCUS LEGAL ACTION
Court of Appeal judgment handed down

As previously reported, the Company commenced an action in the High Court
against Autofocus Limited ("Autofocus") in October 2009 following the discovery
that a number of their employees had presented evidence of daily hire rates
which we believed were false and which had resulted in a material under recovery
of our hire charges. The action brought alleges conspiracy to use unlawful
means, interference to our business by unlawful means and deceit.

We have previously reported that Autofocus made an application to the High Court
to have our action struck out with Autofocus arguing that it was able to rely on
protection from prosecution by reference to witness immunity. As was also
previously reported, that application was rejected by His Honour Judge Mackie QC
(sitting as a judge of the High Court) on 16 December 2009 but permission was
requested by, and was given to, Autofocus to appeal the decision.

That appeal was heard by The Court of Appeal on 9 June 2010 and judgment was
handed down this morning by Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Vice President of the
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). We are pleased to report that the appeal by
Autofocus has been dismissed.

In addressing the issues for trial, Lord Justice Kay said of the Autofocus
evidence that:

"...it will be necessary to consider precisely what each rates surveyor and his
superiors did or omitted to do and what their state of mind was at the time. It
may be necessary to consider the chronology of the events from phone calls (if
made) to the spreadsheets, to the creation of the witness statements. I am bound
to say that, if it is established that a particular surveyor dishonestly
fabricated evidence, in my view, applying Darker, he would be unlikely to avail
himself of the immunity..."

Following the appeal judgment, the Company will now make an application to the
High Court to amend the original proceedings in this case to include all of the
Autofocus employees against whom we believe we have further evidence of
dishonesty.

The case against Autofocus therefore continues.

Update on other Autofocus related matters

As well as the substantive action brought against Autofocus, and as previously
reported, the Company has identified approximately 2,500 cases where the
decision of a Court may have been unsound based on the evidence given by
employees of Autofocus and where we believe that the hire charges recovered were
below the level that should have been awarded.


In the case of Archer v Skanska Corporation, which is the case where our
suspicions regarding the conduct of Autofocus rate surveyors were first
identified, leave to appeal the original judgment has now been granted by the
Court of Appeal. A form of order has been agreed with the defendant which
provides, inter alia, that a retrial will take place solely on the issue of the
quantum of hire charges. The agreed draft order is before the Court of Appeal
awaiting approval. The defendant has conceded that the original evidence of
Autofocus is unreliable and this evidence has now been abandoned.

In the case of Stewart v Rees, which involved evidence from the same Autofocus
rate surveyor as in the above case, leave to appeal the original decision has
also now been granted following the submission of evidence by the Company which
shows that the comparator vehicle details and rate evidence of the Autofocus
rate surveyor, on which the Judge based the initial award for damages, were
fictitious. In granting permission to appeal, HHJ Walton said:

"Mr. Roger [the Defendant's barrister] candidly accepts the evidence of
Elaine Spence contained in her witness statement raises an important issue in
relation to the evidence of Mr. George Broom [the Autofocus rate surveyor].
Frankly speaking, on an ordinary reading it contradicts it and I think I cannot
ignore the fact that there are other cases in which the same gentleman has been
involved which are currently, no doubt in relation to much higher amounts,
proceeding in the Court of Appeal. Bearing that in mind, it seems to me that it
is not as it were something which can be regarded as without substance. It is
an important and significant issue in relation to the evidence which he gave,
and it would appear on the face of it to indicate that the District Judge in
reaching the decision he did selected a figure which was fictitious.
That being so, it seems to me it is a matter which the court cannot ignore. One
has to balance the use of the resources of the court and the rights of the
parties. I am bound to say when I first looked at the papers it did seem to me
that this was such a small amount of money that giving permission to appeal was
inadvisable. But you also have to put into the scales that if I took that
course, whether it is a financial giant or an ordinary person, they are being
required to accept a loss on the basis of a figure which the evidence suggests
is fictitious. That seems not a situation which the court should accept where
there is a reasonable possibility of rectifying it."

Summary

As a result of the Company's investigations, we believe that all three active
team leaders at Autofocus acted with systematic dishonesty during the period
under investigation and that we now have sufficient evidence to include the
third team leader as a Defendant in our primary damages action against
Autofocus. Furthermore, we believe that we have evidence that also implicates
two former directors who left Autofocus soon after our initial findings of
dishonesty were announced in September 2009.

In the case of Archer, instructions have been given to our legal team to make an
application to have the Autofocus rate surveyor in question made personally
liable for the costs of the appeal and the retrial and also to consider an
application for permission to apply to commit him to prison for contempt of
court.
Steve Evans, Chief Executive said:

"We are delighted with the judgment
from the Court of Appeal because it now allows for the hearing of the
substantive issues of our claim in open court to be resumed after a delay of six
months. We are also encouraged with the judgment in Stewart where, for the first
time in one of these cases, we have a Judge confirming that the Autofocus
evidence given in that case led to the trial Judge accepting a fictitious spot
rate figure as the basis for making his judgment.

"Whilst this delay to
the substantive litigation has been ongoing, we have prepared further cases from
the population of approximately 2,500 which we now intend to seek leave to
appeal. In addition, and following today's judgment in the Court of Appeal, we
have decided to bring into the main action against Autofocus, as co-defendants,
the majority of those 13 employees of Autofocus who left the business hurriedly
in September 2009 and against whom we have evidence of improper behaviour in
order that they can fully account for the investigations that they say they
conducted on gathering hire rates, the veracity of the evidence they gave and
the reasons for their rapid departure from Autofocus when our suspicions were
aroused."

[wilba] 30/7/2010 08:35

Autofocus Limited has today been placed into Administration and Paul Boyle and John Sallabank of Harrisons, 4 St Giles Court, Southampton Street, Reading, RG1 2QL were appointed as Joint Administrators

The Joint Administrators will continue to trade the business in the short term in order that a purchaser can be found for the business and assets of the Company. Potential purchasers are invited to view the marketing report at for further details in this regard.

The Joint Administrators are intending to trade the business throughout the marketing period in order to maintain a continuous and seamless service to the customers and end users.

For further details regarding the reasons for the commencement of and matters leading to the Administration please see previous press releases issued by Autofocus Limited

For further information in the first instance please contact Brian Stanfield of Harrisons on 0118 951 0798 [e-mail]

[wilba] 30/7/2010 08:34

Press release by Autofocus 15 July 2010
Autofocus notes the Announcement made by Accident Exchange plc on 14 July 2010 in relation to the Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal on that day. Autofocus did not pursue its appeal in order to strike out Accident Exchange's case. Instead, Autofocus sought confirmation, following the Judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Mackie QC, that nothing in that Judgment would prevent Autofocus from relying on the witness immunity rule as a defence to Accident Exchange's allegations.

The Court of Appeal declined to make a declaration which finally determined whether or not the witness immunity rule protects Autofocus primarily because of a change in the way Accident Exchange argued the point on appeal. Lord Justice Kay noted that:

...Accident Exchange submits... [that Judge Mackie QC] probably did not intend to express his views on the merits of the witness immunity point with finality but should be taken simply to have decided the point on an arguable basis... In my Judgment [Accident Exchange's] point is correct... The Judge was not determining a preliminary point of law... Accordingly, the outcome of Autofocus' application was not designed to be conclusive on the issue. It remains at large. By parity of reasoning, we ought not to take unto ourselves the ultimate determination of the issue."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, Autofocus is pleased that Accident Exchange has conceded and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that this issue remains at large, for the trial Judge to decide. Autofocus will therefore be able to rely on the witness immunity rule as a defence to Accident Exchange's claims at trial.

Autofocus notes the intention of Accident Exchange to amend its claim yet again. Autofocus has repeatedly highlighted to Accident Exchange the significant deficiencies in its case, and it awaits to see whether Accident Exchange is able to cure those deficiencies in what will be its third set of Particulars of Claim in 9 months.

Autofocus also awaits Accident Exchange's clarification of how it intends to establish any loss arising from 2,500 separate cases in which it alleges that Autofocus provided unsound evidence.

To date, Accident Exchange has identified only 96 cases to Autofocus in which it alleges that Autofocus' evidence is unsound. Autofocus has revisited its evidence in each of these 96 cases and conducted a comparison exercise. That comparison has involved conducting internet-only surveys (rather than using telephone surveys). Internet only surveys rely solely on internet searches using publicly available information that can easily and conclusively be verified.

The results of that comparison exercise show that Autofocus' original evidence, which is the subject of Accident Exchange's complaints, was accurate and, if anything, favoured Accident Exchange by a small margin in comparison with the internet-only rates.

Therefore, even if Accident Exchange is able to overcome the witness immunity rule and the deficiencies in its case, and then prove that Autofocus' evidence was unsound in each of 2,500 unspecified cases, Autofocus does not believe that Accident Exchange will be able to establish any recoverable losses from those cases. Nor is it apparent how re-opening cases can have any worth to Accident Exchange or its stakeholders.

Meanwhile, Autofocus continues to provide witness evidence in cases against Accident Exchange. Between September 2009 and June 2010, the total claim value of the 37 full trials during that time was £585,314.81 and the court awards totalled £202,030.75 (34.5%) of the amount claimed by Accident Exchange. Period was reduced by the courts in 16 of the 37 claims (43.2%).

[wilba] 30/7/2010 08:31

Hey Brainy????

Have you considered that they have settled and gone into receivership as a result. There was no indication AF were about to before the action???

[patersdw] 29/7/2010 21:25

Whether AF have gone into administration or not is irrelevant - any liability that AF faces will have arisen while its insurances were in force (and they still will be, since the co hasn't been wound up yet). If the money can't be got from AF directly, ACE will sue their insurer for any judgement outstanding (is how I understand things).

[sir brainy] 29/7/2010 19:50

Is insurance hire car a good idea?
Honest John helps a reader decide if it's worth using a hire car while he waits for his own car to be repaired.

By Honest John
Published: 6:30AM BST 29 Jul 2010

Teenage rampage

My parked car was hit by a young driver, who had apparently fallen asleep at the wheel. The police were called and, after testing that he had not been drinking, were happy to let the insurance companies handle things. I have fully comprehensive cover and my insurers have given my details to a hire company, which has contacted me about a replacement courtesy car. I have another vehicle that I could insure and use until my claim is settled. I'm aware that hire companies sometimes make large charges for minor (sometimes pre-existing) damage when the car is returned. I'm wondering whether it would be better to use my other vehicle for the short daily trip to the station.

+++

There have been many instances of repairs being delayed to extend loan periods and make more money for credit hire operators. Do not sign anything that makes you liable for the cost of the courtesy car if the other party's insurer does not pay up.

[sir brainy] 29/7/2010 19:19

They may have to settle so they've gone bust, ergo no payout.

The insurance is worth maybe a few hundred thou.

[wilba] 29/7/2010 16:43

Most indemnities cover the liabilities of a board in the region of £100m. The fact A/F have filed for bancruptcy shows they know they will have to settle.

[patersdw] 29/7/2010 09:16

I don't know. Do you? Smarty pants.

[sir brainy] 29/7/2010 06:31

And is that indemnity insurance unlimited?

Completely impossible. It will be capped.

And does it cover fraud by the party insured?

Most policies would exclude this.

[patersdw] 29/7/2010 06:28

AF never had the funds to satisfy any significant findingagainst them - it was always going to come down to their professional indemnity insurance. I'm not sure that AF going into insolvency changes anything, other than to suggest a tacit admission that they're guilty as charged....

[partner] 29/7/2010 06:12

Insurance co might meet liability,given small print detail but they will wriggle.

[sir brainy] 29/7/2010 04:45

It means that even if ACE win the legal case, their chance of getting big money out of Autofocus is zero.

[dyfiman] 28/7/2010 22:19

So what does this mean for Ace??? All speculators, experts, and wild fantasists please form an orderly queue to post. Ready, steady....... go!!!!

[dyfiman] 28/7/2010 22:02

Bit of a jaw-dropper, eh!!??

[dyfiman] 28/7/2010 22:00

FROM THE INSURANCE THIS EVENING

AUTOFOCUS in administration
28 July, 2010

Administrators to find buyer for Autofocus and its assets

Credit hire reporting firm Autofocus has entered administration.

The company, which has been at the centre of a legal dispute with credit hire firm Accident Exchange for almost a year, has appointed Southampton-based administrators Harrisons.

Joint administrators, Paul Boyle and John Sallabank, will keep the business trading in the short term in order to find a buyer for the business and company assets.

"The joint administrators are intending to trade the business throughout the marketing period in order to maintain a continuous and seamless service to the customers and end users," Autofocus said in a statement.

In the ongoing credit hire rate dispute with Accident Exchange, Autofocus suffered a blow earlier this month when the Court of Appeal threw out its witness immunity claim.
END

[shammytime] 27/7/2010 09:20

This should start to motor within the next 10-14 days. 12p resistance should get broken through this time...