The following is a statement prepared by our solicitors, James Boston & Sullivan, 40 Victoria Square, Belfast.
Main features of submissions on behalf of Mrs Vera Douglas (my older sister) and Mr W J Andrews to be made to the Court on Friday 24th February 1984.
1. 62-65 Smithfield Square, Belfast and 1-11 Francis Street, Belfast. (Paragraph 13 in the Report of Official Solicitor).
As it has be (this should have read "been") established that these premises are still in the ownership of the patient we respectfully submit that they should be retained in his ownership and the capital sum of £35.000.00 paid to the credit or for the benefit of the patient be applied towards rent of the premises.
2. 14 Castlehill Road, Belfast. (Paragraph 9 in the report of Official Solicitor).
We submit that the valuation of Messrs Macrory and Jefferson is a truer valuation than that of Messrs Alex Murdoch & Deane in that it is based on better comparables while the comparables of Mess re Murdoch & Dean are not proper comparables.
We would respectfully suggest that in order to resolve the conflict between the two valuations the matter be referred to the District Valuer. If this valuation confirms the valuation of Messrs Macrory and Jefferson or shows that the price realised was below the market value we would respectfully suggest that the question of the recovery of damages in respect of the undervalue should be considered.
3. 3-5 Little King Street, Belfast and 5-21 Winetavern Street, Belfast. (Paragraph 6 and 11 in the Report of the Official Solicitor).
We respectfully submit that these sales were not in the best interests of the patient because both premises had been purchased by the patient's father because of their development potential and capital appreciation and ought to have been retained with that object for the benefit of the patient. The fact that they had development potential is evidenced by the current development proposals for the Smithfield area which have appeared in the Press this present month.
As solicitors for the late Mr Frederick Andrews, Senior, the patient's father, it is within our personal knowledge that these properties were purchased with that end in view and not for rental income.
4. Mrs Minetta Andrews (Paragraph 13 in the Report of the Official Solicitor).
Following on the conclusion of the enquiries of the Official Solicitor as to the financial affairs of Mrs Andrews and what sums should be recouped from her, we would respectfully suggest, that apart from the recovery of such current household expenditure as may be decided upon, the actual payment of capital sums should be postponed during her lifetime provided that some means could be devised to prevent her assets being dissipated and repayment thereby prevented.
5. We would respectfully submit that the professional fees of Mr John G Drennan as Committee and of Mr Peter Rankin as Acting Committee be taxed.
6. We respectfully submit that the costs of our clients be a charge on the patient's estate with a view to recovery from the party or parties whose actions brought about the necessity for these enquiries and this review.
Dated this 17th day of February 1984
James Boston & Sullivan
40 Victoria Square
Letter from Tughan & Co., Solicitors, Marlborough House, 30 Victoria Street, Belfast,
Boston & Sullivan Solicitors, 40 Victoria Square, Belfast, dated 20th August 1984.
RE: Frederick Andrews (Junior)
We have been asked by the Police to produce certain original documents and of course we are only to happy to do this although there are occasions in relation to certain documents where we have potential conflict in relation to our duty of confidentiality as between clients. One of the documents we have been asked to produce is the Agreement between William J. Andrews & others of the one part and Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited of the other part dated 30th September, 1977. The Police already I believe have a copy of this document but would like to have the original. We would be grateful if you could please confirm that you have no objection to the original being handed over and we have asked Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited through their solicitors to confirm that they have no objection and they will carry out your and their instructions.
TUGHAN & COMPANY.
The following letter was sent to me from the Office of Care and Protection on August 13th 1985.
Dear Mrs. Wright,
I acknowledge receipt of you recent letters, the last received yesterday.I am sorry that they were not acknowledged earlier but I was on leave.
I will endeavour to provide answers for you as soon as possible.
However, I understand that, with the exception of the house at Castlehill Road none of your brother's properties has been sold.
I received the following letter from the Lord Chancellor's Office, Windsor House, 9-15 Bedford Street, Belfast dated April 15th 1986.
Dear Mrs Wright
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516.
Your letter of 19 February 1986 addressed to Mr Charles Powell, a private secretary at 10 Downing Street, has only now been referred to this Department.
Since you wrote that letter, of course, the Official Solicitor's final report to the Court has been considered by the Judge and the hearing of your brother's affairs brought to a conclusion. I understand that you and other members of your family were present in Court at the last review hearing on Friday 7 March 1986 and that you were represented by your solicitor.
You will also be aware that a further sitting has been re-listed before the Judge on Friday 9 May next at which your solicitor, among others, will seek provision for his costs. It is therefore open to you to obtain the advice of your solicitor on any feature of the case in good time before the next hearing on that date.
I suggest that it is essential that you should direct your comments and submissions to the Court while the opportunity is still available rather than to civil servants who are unable to intervene in the judicial process.
J B SMYTH