This "Client Warning Notice" in the Gazette is not relevant for this hearing. Whether it was or was not put to buyers is not relevant in this case as the purpose of the hearing is to present the examiner's scheme of arrangement to the Court and have the Court judge if it should be accepted or not.Just to update people -
I have not yet received any reply from the solicitors for the Examiner - confirming if they have presented my letter to the attention of Mr. Justice Clarke this morning.
Initially the reply that we received was that the Homebond limitations have already been presented to the Court.
But I then made the point that this is a new issue, while related to Homebond, was actually about making Mr. Justice Clarke aware of the Homebond Warning that was issued by the Law Society in 2000 and requesting that a "Client Warning Notice" be included by builders solicitors in contracts.
So I am unaware if Mr. Justice Clarke is aware at this moment in time of the existence of the "Client Warning Notice" .
Request for Help: Can anyone who is going to the Hearing today bring this new issue to the attention of the Examiner, Mr. Paul McCann and his legal representatives?
The limitations of the Homebond Scheme were probably put to the Court originally as they are relevant when ascertaining the impact of a liquidation on depositors as it was first thought that if the company liquidated, the depositors would get the deposit back under the Homebond Scheme. They would not receive anything from the company on liquidation and unfortunately it would seem that there is a two year time limit under the Homebond Scheme so that they wouldn't get any joy from Homebond either.
This is taken into account by the judge as the conditions for forcing the examiner's scheme through, require that the unsecured creditors would not be in a better position if the company liquidated, which they clearly wouldn't be here as they'd get nothing from Laragan or the Homebond Scheme.
The "Client Warning Notice" would be relevant if anybody was interested in suing the builder's solicitor or their own solicitor from professional negligence although proving that a solicitor was obliged to include it could be tricky...