UK 14:37 Monday, 26 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Last year the clowns at Aussie keystone-lawyers Slater & Gordon (SGH) filed an annual report on 19 September. That was within the three months of the June 30 year end dictated by the ASX. This year, is there a Quindell (QPP) induced problemo? No Annual Report has bee published yet.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
pink53
I don’t understand any Stock Market let alone the Australian one but wasn’t the report published some time ago; http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/company.do#!/SGH ?
Tom Winnifrith
Unaudited annual results out. Audited annual report not
t
pink53
… and according to the unaudited results http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150828/pdf/430ws5kcdpkx90.pdf the report will be published about 20 October 2015.
ColinS2
“…Is there a problem with the auditors queerying some of the numbers” -LOL, pun intended?
Kolo
http://www.asx.com.au/documents/research/company_reporting_dates_2015.pdf
Looks like Audited Accounts by this Wednesday and Ann Report by 2/11/15.
Claims Specialist
I bet S&G are having a look at what and how they bought the Quindell book of business following the judgement below:-
he law firm that took on Barnetts’ personal injury book has failed to recover its costs in a personal injury claim, on the basis that the conditional fee agreement drawn up by Barnetts was not successfully assigned to it.
In Jones v Spire Healthcare (Case no. A13YJ811, 11.9.15) in Liverpool County Court, DJ Jenkinson held that the claimant was entitled to recover the costs incurred by Barnetts, but not those later incurred by SGI Legal, which bought Barnetts’ PI caseload when the firm went into administration last year.
The judge held that the CFA between Ms Jones and Barnetts had not been validly assigned to SGI, because according to established common law principles, the assignment of personal contracts was not possible. He found the case did not fall within the ‘narrow exception’ to this principle established in Jenkins v Young Bros Transport (2006) 1 WLR 3189, where the claimant had been ‘loyally following an individual solicitor’ to their new firm.
Although the CFA itself had not been assigned, DJ Jenkinson held that the ‘benefit of the retainer’ between Barnetts and Ms Jones had been validly assigned, which entitled the claimant to recover the earlier costs incurred by Barnetts.
However, the costs incurred by SGI could not be recovered, as there was ‘no enforceable retainer’ between that firm and the claimant. The judge found the agreement between SGI and the claimant to be a ‘novation’ rather than an assignment, meaning that it did not come into effect until January 2014. That put it in breach of regulations introduced in 2013, because the agreement mentioned a 100% success fee without referring to the 25% statutory cap – although the wording had been valid when drawn up by Barnetts in 2012.
The judge said the claimant could ‘potentially’ recover disbursements incurred by SGI, but he had not heard submissions on this point.
It is understood that the decision is to be appealed.