The father and son behind the ill-fated Bay Festival venture have lost their final battle for multi-million pounds in compensation over the collapse of their development firm.

A high court judgment brings to an end an 11-year legal battle over the controversial winding up of Jonathan and Jamie Irving’s Street Heritage company.

But Deemster Andrew Corlett’s judgment has stinging criticism of the failings by lawyer Jerry Carter and former government advocate and one-time Attorney General Stephen Harding. He said their ’disastrous failures of professional standards’ on the day of the winding up hearing had been the ’direct or indirect cause of much litigation’.

Street Heritage was wound up following a short court hearing on February 24, 2010, over an unpaid tax bill totalling £182,929.

In an earlier judgment, Deemster Corlett ruled that Street Heritage’s advocate Jerry Carter had been negligent by not turning up in time for the winding-up hearing.

The then government advocate Mr Harding, who was acting for the assessor of income tax, unaccountably failed to inform Deemster Doyle that Mr Carter was instructed by the Irvings and an adjournment was not opposed.

The Irvings’ £3.5m claim for damages against Mr Harding and other government officials was struck out in May 2011.

But they went on to pursue a negligence claim for just under £5m against their lawyer Mr Carter.

However, in his judgment, Mr Corlett said all claims must fail because the losses were not caused by the defendant’s negligence.

He said Street Heritage had been insolvent and would have been wound up anyway within a matter of weeks or months and there was no viable rescue package available to save the situation.

The company had not even been intended to be profit-making by the time of the winding-up order.

’SHL was valueless at the time of the winding-up order. An insolvent company with no value cannot give rise to a claim when it is wound up by the court,’ he said.

Mr Carter has always maintained that the Irvings’ financial empire had been due to collapse in any event as Street Heritage was ’clearly insolvent’ at the time of the presentation of the winding-up petition, with other creditors waiting in the wings.

In September 2017 Jonathan and Jamie Irving were disqualified to act as directors for a period of eight years and seven years respectively.

acquitted

Mr Harding, who had been the government advocate in February 2010, but had been elevated to Attorney General in April 2011, was twice tried before a jury in the Court of General Gaol Delivery in 2013 and 2014 as a result of his alleged actions prior to the winding up hearing but was acquitted on both occasions. He was however found guilty of professional misconduct and reprimanded by the Advocates’ Disciplinary Tribunal in September 2010 for failing to inform the High Court that Street Heritage was legally represented and was in negotiation to reach a settlement.

The Irvings had claimed a total of just under £5m for losses and other damages arising out of the winding up of Street Heritage, arguing that Mr Carter had caused or permitted the company to become insolvent.

These losses included £589,381 incurred by the 2010 Isle of Man Bay Festival, which took place about four months after the winding-up order.

A further festival planned for summer 2011 had to be cancelled due to lack of confidence in the claimants caused by the winding-up of Street Heritage, giving rise to further losses of £450,000.

But Deemster Corlett ruled these claims were ’misconceived’ as the 2010 festival had been projected to break even and one of the biggest causes for the additional losses in 2010 was the large numbers of non-ticket holders who had managed to get into the concerts.

He said the claimed losses for the cancelled 2011 Festival were ’far too remote’ to be the responsibility of Mr Carter.

In concluding remarks, the Deemster reiterated his concern about the manner in which the claim had been defended which he said had led to much delay and vastly increased costs.

He said the decision of Mr Carter and his firm to contest and even appeal the issue of negligence was ’wholly misconceived’.