Peter Corkhill makes a snafu

Our Ref: CR/23032009 23 March 2009 Dear Mr. Holmes, I have taken advice in relation to the three complaint forms you have submitted to General Registry on 5 March 2009. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to respond to you.

There are two issues involved which are distinct and separate: the conduct or capability of my staff and any claim for damages you might have. The latter is a matter for you to pursue through the Courts.

This letter responds only to your complaints about my staff and I am mindful of the government “Standardized Procedure for Responding to Complaints from the General Public�.

The essence of your complaint is that two of my officers, Mrs. C. Dowd and Mrs. J. Farquhar were responsible for the erroneous registration of Courts Orders from England with the Court in the Isle of Man. You raised your concerns with me when we met on 27 January 2006. At that meeting I explained to you how you should address matters before the Court and I agreed to examine the matter of the registration of Court Orders using the General Registry Complaints Procedure (the government Standardised Procedure). I wrote to you on 30 January 2006 summarising what we had agreed in our meeting.

As the matters of which you had complained concerned the Courts Division, I asked Mrs. Dowd as Director of Courts to conduct the required investigation. As you know, Mrs. Dowd wrote to you on 9 February 2006 explaining the error and apologizing to you (copy enclosed).

Subsequently in 2007, after you had appealed to the Court as I had advised in January 2006, it came to light that Mrs. Dowd's investigation in January/February 2006 had not revealed the full extent of the error made regarding the registration of the Court Orders from England. At the request of the Amicas Curiae, I examined the position and reported thereon to Mannin Chambers by letter dated 25 July 2007 (copy enclosed). I understand that subsequently your appeal was successful.

In January 2006 your complaint was properly investigated, errors were found and you were issued with an apology. Appropriate action was taken to rectify the position.

In July 2007 a further investigation was undertaken which revealed an incompleteness about the January 2006 investigation. A full report was submitted to the Amicas Curiae, the relevant procedure notes were revised to reflect the correct procedure for registering Court Orders from other jurisdictions and appropriate action was taken with the staff involved to avoid future errors.

I am satisfied that the January 2006 investigation of your complaint revealed an error and you were issued with an apology. Whilst the July 2007 investigation revealed the fuller extent of the error made, it was nevertheless the same error for which you had already received an apology. Appropriate action has been taken to ensure procedure notes are up to date and staff have been instructed in their use. In accordance with the government Standardised Procedure, I am satisfied that your complaint has been dealt with and the procedures have been exhausted.

Although your complaint was dealt with in January/February 2006 and an apology was issued to you, you have continued to repeat the complaint on numerous occasions. Your complaint has been dealt with properly in accordance with procedures. Those procedures have now been exhausted and I must ask you to desist from submitting repeated copies of the same complaint.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. Corkhill, Chief Registrar -1-

Text of letter of 9th February 2006 Mr S Holmes Douglas Isle of Man

sh/0070206sd 9th February 2006

Dear Mr Holmes Formal Complaint FD/UK/COR/02 and DIV 2004/144 Following your meeting with the Chief Registrar on 27th January 2006, I reply to your allegation that there had been maladministration in the Isle of Man when accepting the UK orders at front of house.

Mrs Holmes submitted two court orders from the Lancaster County Court with this court on 2nd April 2004 for registration. The two orders submitted were true copies of the orders made. However, the courts administration did not follow the rules laid down ensuring that the copy orders submitted were certified copies.

I enclose herewith of the orders submitted by Mrs Holmes on 2nd April 2004 and the certified copies of these orders, and I apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused.

Yours sincerely,

Carol Dowd Director of Court Services C.c.

R P Corkhill, Chief Registrar

-2-

Text of letter of 25th July 2007 Mannin Chambers Third Floor Atlantic House

Your ref: HH/FK/07-066 Date: 25 July 2007

Dear Sirs, Registration of Court Orders Amicus Curiae Thank you for your letter of 17th July 2007 asking for copies of the following: 1. The letters from the Lancaster County Court enclosing copies of the applications, supporting documentation and the Order.

2. Copies of the certified Orders from Lancaster County Court signed by the judge or registrar.

The documents referred to above do not exist. The application to register the orders in the Isle of Man was made directly by Yvonne Holmes.

From an inspection of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic]it would appear that the two orders were registered with the Court in the Isle of Man by this office erroneously, i.e. not in accordance with the requirements of the Child Custody Act 1987. However, Deputy Deemster Williamson made the order of 5th November 2004, effectively endorsing the provisions of the Orders from the Court in Lancaster.

Upon an examination of the file DIV 2004/114 [sic]in 2006, it was noted that documents submitted by Yvonne Holmes were not certified copies and therefore certified copies of the two Orders were sought by this office from the Lancaster County Court. A comparison of the February 2004 documents shows that the copies submitted by Yvonne Holmes were true copies but not certified copies. For some reason we do not have certified copies of the October 2004 documents.

I enclose for your information copies of the relevant documents held in the General Registry files, if you wish to discuss this with me, do please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. CORKHILL CHIEF REGISTRAR

-3-

Text of letter of 14th August 2007 Date: 14th August 2007

Stephen Holmes Dear Mr Holmes,

I refer to your letter of 12th August 2007 addressed to “The General Registry”.

The Child Custody Act 1987 is the authority which allows for court orders such as those issued by the Lancaster County Court to be registered with the Court in the Isle of Man. The Court Orders made by Deputy Deemster Williamson are valid Court Orders and can only be overturned or “set-aside” by due appeal process.

Your application of March 2007, which I understand was made with the assistance of a legally qualified friend, was made to the Appeal Court and sought to have the Deputy Deemster's Orders “set-aside”.

The Orders cannot be “set-aside” unless due process is followed and you should persist with your application to the Appeal Court.

Yours sincerely,

R. P. CORKHILL CHIEF REGISTRAR

-4-